US court says drug-sniffing dog fails the smell test

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

C'mon, guys. Throw Kirk a bone. He's trying to clean up after these errant puppies.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My thought directed to the dog handlers: Don't flatulate on my leg and tell me the scent of drugs is present, much like don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who would have thought that praising dogs for finding drugs might cause them to find non-existent drugs. This could not have been predicted.

That's not how it works

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think many are under the impression that the dog is rewarded only for positive hits. C'mon guys, give the dogs and handlers some credit.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think many are under the impression that the dog is rewarded only for positive hits. C'mon guys, give the dogs and handlers some credit.

Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." The root of the problem is that in conscientious and ethical hands a dog can provide useful assistance. In less scrupulous hands, it becomes a writ of assistance on a leash. I understand that this tends to be a sore subject with some of our resident lawmen, but just because they are honorable professionals and do not work with Officer Whistledick, that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, as I can attest from personal experience and from the accounts offered by people I trust--and then there are the videos of that, well, less than satisfactory officer from Collinsville, Illinois. Returning to Reagan, one of the critical problems with the police use of dogs is that there really isn't any way to verify the capability of a given dog nor is there any way to effectively address false positives other than the boilerplate excuse that there must have been drugs there sometime between 5 minutes ago and the inauguration of John Quincy Adams.

 

[AA&E]

Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." The root of the problem is that in conscientious and ethical hands a dog can provide useful assistance. In less scrupulous hands, it becomes a writ of assistance on a leash. I understand that this tends to be a sore subject with some of our resident lawmen, but just because they are honorable professionals and do not work with Officer Whistledick, that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, as I can attest from personal experience and from the accounts offered by people I trust--and then there are the videos of that, well, less than satisfactory officer from Collinsville, Illinois. Returning to Reagan, one of the critical problems with the police use of dogs is that there really isn't any way to verify the capability of a given dog nor is there any way to effectively address false positives other than the boilerplate excuse that there must have been drugs there sometime between 5 minutes ago and the inauguration of John Quincy Adams.

I agree. An officer can claim to smell the presence of drugs and then search based upon that suspicion. How do you disprove a smells presence? You can't. With dogs it is even more difficult because the sensitivity can write off a non-finding as trace residue and get a pass for violation of rights. I was not always a beacon of lawful behavior. I've seen drug dogs react various ways and had their handlers claim they signaled the presence of a controlled substance. Everything from a dog going bat-**** crazy (to the point of tearing up interior seats) to a dog that passively sat his ass down outside the car and seemed completely disinterested. Bottom line if they want a reason to search they can manufacture one and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. That said, I haven't had these types of issues since I grew the hell up and stopped running around with ass length hair and tie dyed t-shirts. FWIW.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." The root of the problem is that in conscientious and ethical hands a dog can provide useful assistance. In less scrupulous hands, it becomes a writ of assistance on a leash. I understand that this tends to be a sore subject with some of our resident lawmen, but just because they are honorable professionals and do not work with Officer Whistledick, that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, as I can attest from personal experience and from the accounts offered by people I trust--and then there are the videos of that, well, less than satisfactory officer from Collinsville, Illinois. Returning to Reagan, one of the critical problems with the police use of dogs is that there really isn't any way to verify the capability of a given dog nor is there any way to effectively address false positives other than the boilerplate excuse that there must have been drugs there sometime between 5 minutes ago and the inauguration of John Quincy Adams.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to IndyDave1776 again.

 

[chipbennett]

How is a K9 "hit" calibrated against a known standard? How can a K9 "hit" be independently verified? How can the accused confront his K9 accuser? Can a K9 differentiate between a legal drug and an illegal drug when making a "hit"? What about a prescribed, Schedule II drug?

Can these (and similar) questions be answered satisfactorily?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree. An officer can claim to smell the presence of drugs and then search based upon that suspicion. How do you disprove a smells presence? You can't. With dogs it is even more difficult because the sensitivity can write off a non-finding as trace residue and get a pass for violation of rights. I was not always a beacon of lawful behavior. I've seen drug dogs react various ways and had their handlers claim they signaled the presence of a controlled substance. Everything from a dog going bat-**** crazy (to the point of tearing up interior seats) to a dog that passively sat his ass down outside the car and seemed completely disinterested. Bottom line if they want a reason to search they can manufacture one and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. That said, I haven't had these types of issues since I grew the hell up and stopped running around with ass length hair and tie dyed t-shirts. FWIW.

As it happens, this is all exactly what one finds, and stands as a good explanation of why this nonsense should not be tolerated. I would add that you should be able to wear your hair however you like and wear whatever shirt you like without that becoming some kind of de facto justification for untoward attention from the police.

What needs to be done is to have those troublesome writs of assistance on leashes banished from the realm of law enforcement.

 

[T.Lex]

Had no idea where else to put this. (Future-pun, intended.)

From one of today's Indiana Court of Appeals decisions. It reminds me of that cabaret classic, "Put that thing back where it came from or so help me!"

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091802lmb.pdf

Sgt. Dodd then saw Ditton pull out the elastic waistband of her pants and place the baggie inside her [girly parts].

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Had no idea where else to put this. (Future-pun, intended.)

From one of today's Indiana Court of Appeals decisions. It reminds me of that cabaret classic, "Put that thing back where it came from or so help me!"

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091802lmb.pdf


[/FONT]

Reading that quote, I would believe the officer had provided an inaccurate account. The assertion that he witnessed the (sorry)...insertion, is not compatible with his description of the lady, sitting in the van and "pulling out the waistband of her pants". He could have seen the baggie disappear, but he couldn't have seen where it ended up.

 

[chipbennett]

Reading that quote, I would believe the officer had provided an inaccurate account. The assertion that he witnessed the (sorry)...insertion, is not compatible with his description of the lady, sitting in the van and "pulling out the waistband of her pants". He could have seen the baggie disappear, but he couldn't have seen where it ended up.

Except that the facts of the case also state that Ditton subsequently removed the bag from said [girly parts]. So, the officer was correct regarding where she put them.

 

[T.Lex]

I wonder how confused the drug sniffing dog was.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

He could have seen the baggie disappear, but he couldn't have seen where it ended up.

...there's not exactly a lot of options, are there?

 

[HoughMade]

I was in charge of our associate in-house CLE yesterday whereat our associates present recent cases. I feel like a schmuck for not assigning this case.

On the plus side, I still have a job.

 

[KLB]

...there's not exactly a lot of options, are there?

Magic?

 

[T.Lex]

"Hey - who's class ring is this?"

 

[Trigger Time]

I wonder how confused the drug sniffing dog was.

He probably thought he was at a fever game

 

[HoughMade]

"Hey - who's class ring is this?"

"We better call this in. I think I found Jimmy Hoffa."

 

[MarkC]

Had no idea where else to put this. (Future-pun, intended.)

From one of today's Indiana Court of Appeals decisions. It reminds me of that cabaret classic, "Put that thing back where it came from or so help me!"

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091802lmb.pdf

After reading that case, I have an overpowering desire to go wash my hands. And wash them again. And it has been over four years since I have touched anything that was taken from a defendant.