But I beg another question. Are these dogs even effective in properly identifying the possession of marijuana? Further, should their alert be used as probable cause, the basis of a more in depth search?

Before I continue, I think the answer to those questions is “no.”

Traveling Abroad For Answers

In my limited amount of time to look into this, I couldn’t find much in the way of research on the use of sniffer dogs and their validity in America.

So, like anyone else who wants to find the answers to American propaganda I widened my search to include other countries.

To Australia!

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties decided not too long ago to review the Police Powers Act. With a few differences, the way in which their police use dogs as a means to find illegal substances is very similar to ours.

In their review, they found that sniffer dogs “get it wrong in three out of five searches.”

Three out of five? Yeah, three out of five. But let’s take a few closer looks at what they found.

No Suppliers Found

I’m not too sure on the details of the goals of dog use in America as it regards to the ‘War on Drugs,’ but in a debate the NSW Police Minister said:

The Bill is aimed primarily at detecting and prosecuting persons committing offences relating to the supply of prohibited drugs or plants.

Basically, they are looking for drug dealers. Has the use of dog sniffers worked so far?

Sniffer dogs are intended to help police catch drug suppliers. They are a spectacular failure. Only about 1-2.5% of all people identified by sniffer dogs are drug dealers. In fact, only about 20-30% of all people identified by sniffer dogs are in possession of drugs at all. Of those, the vast majority are in possession of small amounts of cannabis.

I see. The dogs are only properly identifying 1 – 2.5% of those alerted as “drug dealers,” and with only a 20-30% success rate in identifying even simple possession.

The review continues with:

Drug detection dogs are being used by police as an excuse to trawl the community. The dogs are being used not so much for drug detection but rather to arbitrarily stop, search and detain citizens police would not otherwise be able to. Under the guise of sniffer dog operations, police are asking thousands of people for their names and addresses and storing this information on police databases – even when the citizen has committed no offense. This is a misuse of state power and must stop immediately.

So it seems that the police were using these dogs and their alerts as a reason to stop and question citizens.

Blind Faith In Dogs

More disturbing than the inaccurate use of the dogs to find drug offenders are the stories you hear about their handlers giving them queues to alert on a vehicle or person.

I know it seems like a conspiracy theory. But think about this. You are a cop, and you want to search a vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has told you that he does not consent. Now, not only are you not able to search the vehicle, but this punk kid is being a “smart ass,” what with his rights and all. That’s fine. I’ll just pull my dog out, wave my hand a bit, and blamo; I have probable cause.

The appalling inaccuracy of these dogs is compounded by the unwillingness of their handlers to admit this inaccuracy. The handlers offer many excuses for their dogs, for example that people identified had recently used drugs or were in the presence of those who did. Such excuses do not alter the fact that these dogs cannot accurately detect people in actual possession of prohibited drugs.

This blind faith is documented in the Discussion Paper. For example, one dog handler claims that his dog ‘never lies’. This leads to the disturbing attitude of dog handlers and police that anyone identified by these dogs is in someway connected to prohibited drugs– and if the citizen denies it, then law enforcement officials assume they are lying.

You have to remember that dogs (and other animals in general) have a very simple mindset. Though they have feelings, they are not as defined as that of a human.

When being trained, these dogs are rewarded for finging drugs. So, even if done so unconciously, a handler is rewarding his dog for finding what he wants to be found.

This dog only knows that when it finds what it’s owner wants, he gets a treat. What does his owner want? This marijuana. Or, maybe it’s plastic bags. Or maybe it’s brown paper bags.

See my point? Think Pavlov.

Cannot Provide Reasonable Suspicion

Given the dismal accuracy of drug detection dogs, CCL submits that it is not possible to claim that an identification by a sniffer dog is sufficient of itself to constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is in fact carrying prohibited drugs. It is certainly not possible to say that such a sniffer dog identification is sufficient of itself to formulate a reasonable
suspicion that an individual is involved in the supply of prohibited drugs.

The question of reasonable suspicion is extremely important in policing. In the case of prohibited drugs, a police officer may stop, search and detain any person he or she reasonably suspects of having in their possession or control any prohibited drug or plant.

I bring this part up for a very important reality of what I feel most people are not aware. You may be thinking that in order for a police officer to search your vehicle they would need to establish probable cause. And that a dog’s alert is so obviously fallible that it would not constitute needed cause.

Unfortunately you would be incorrect.

In 1998 Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding in his vehicle. The officer that had stopped him went through the routine as usual. Though the officer requested no aid, Trooper Craig Graham of the Drug Interdiction Team decided to join anyway. He pulled out his dog, which alerted to the trunk of Caballes’ vehicle. And inside, they found marijuana.

There was a short debate over whether or not the use of the canine unit was justifiable in the first place, as the first officer was already writing a warning with intent to leave it at that when Graham arrived. There was no prior reason to believe Caballes was in possession, but the dog’s alert was accepted as probable cause to search and Caballes was sentenced to 12 years.

Even after the Illinois Supreme Court said that the arrival of the drug dog improperly broadened the scope of the investigation from a traffic stop to a drug investigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trained drug-sniffing dogs may be used to search suspects regardless of probable cause.

In Closing

It seems that sniffer dogs unreliable at best. And now that we have adopted their use so openly, they may be used regardless of your privacy rights.

Welcome to America.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.