We do, though lately our aim is off due to being distracted by the large brush fire burning inside the city.
This is the key question stated as an assumption.
And this is the key answer.
If you (any you) starts from the assumption the system is corrupt, then yes, the system won’t necessarily protect you. It might, but there sure are no guarantees.
Is the system perfect? No. Is the system utterly rotten from end to end, a mere cynically transparent fig leaf like the civil rights enshrined in the Russian constitution? No. The reality is somewhere in the middle. And, shamefully, worse for some groups in some parts of the country than it is for other groups in other parts.
So where to from here? What’s the GQ? Or should we have a thread elsewhere on what to do to change the current reality?
As for K9 sniffs being “junk science”, I’ll have to disagree. I’ve been present for countless searches where no one, not the handler nor other officers, knew where the drugs were. That’s why the dog was there. Lo and behold, the dog found the drugs.
In the OP’scenario the dog alerts off camera. Very convenient for a “crooked cop” scenario. If the not -so-subtle implication is that the cops are lying to establish PC, why have a dog at all? The lying cop could just say “I smelled weed”. It happens, I know. That’s what courts are for.
Clever tactics.
Interesting.
Because the officer doesn’t even need to be crooked. He may genuinely believe he’s honestly protecting and serving. He just tends to tense up around black people who are showing subtle signs of being involved in illegal activity. Even though there’s nothing definite, nothing he can tell a judge to get PC, his friendly doggo can sense this and will alert, even when the doggo can’t smell any drugs.
Stereotyping works. If you meet enough criminals you can probably start to spot subtle signs that someone is a criminal that aren’t really overt enough to convince a judge. So the dog alerts, more often than not something seriously illegal is found, and everyone pats each other on the back, the system works. It just sucks to be the one honest black guy wearing gold chains and driving an escalade, I guess. (now I’m stereotyping - surely actual criminals aren’t so easy to spot)
Anyways, it just occurred to me that in this context, the ‘right against unreasonable searches and seizures’ is a bit thin.
Not exactly, but Montana had a deliberately toothless speeding law that the entire state basically wanted to ignore.
In the '70s Montana ‘imposed’ a 55 mph speed limit because the federal government essentially blackmailed them into it by imposing taxes then refusing to spend anything back unless Montana instituted the de-facto-required 55mph speed limit.
The way Montana implemented this rule was that the fine for any speed over 55 was $5, and any such violation specifically would not be added to the driver’s record per Montana law. It was common to carry a supply of $5 bills to hand to police. There did exist reckless driving laws on a separate track with actual penalties, but community standards would not regard driving 100 mph on a straight, empty highway during the day as reckless driving.
Do you know how K-9s work? They work because they are rewarded. If you ever want to see pure joy look at a working dog when it gets to play with his special toy after successfully finding something. They don’t get rewarded for being wrong. The dog is not looking for subtle approval by his handler he is looking to get rewarded. They are trained for years and daily that way. 100% accurate? Nothing is. But it doesn’t work the way you think it does.
In a Chicago Tribune article unfortunately no longer available there more misses than hits.
[QUOTE=Bill Door]
Here you go. 56% misses, 44% hits. Not very surprisingly, a 92% miss rate with Hispanic drivers. Either the dogs are racist, or they’re cuing off the handler’s bias. A Magic 8 Ball would be more reliable.
Sadly, the courts will allow cops to search your vehicle based on nothing more than the “Clever Hans” effect. The drug war reminds me of those octogenarians who careen through crowds while thinking the accelerator pedal is the brake. We keep pressing harder and harder and all the while people are being hurt and killed.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let’s look at the statistics of tests of accuracy. Please show me tests that have indicated high accuracy. All the ones I’ve seen have at least 30% false positives for searching individuals, but I’ll admit to not searching widely.
In this one only 44% of positive signals discovered drug paraphernalia. When counting only Hispanic suspect positives, only 27% resulted in paraphernalia found. It’s possible there are minute amount that come from contamination present, but that’s unproven.
This study indicates efficacy varies a lot. Which makes sense, as they don’t train all police dogs at a central location, and as different breeds of dogs have been bred to different purposes. They did well searching rooms (85%+ positive on signaling) but much more poorly in searching cars (58%-65% on positive signaling).
Here is a study that specifically studies handler beliefs and their impact. Handler belief did make a difference, whether it was from dogs signaling more or humans believing they signaled more.
Wait … I thought the driver had an illegal firearm (a felony) concealed under the seat (another felony) …
In addition to Tzigone’s citations, my own experience with different dogs lead me to believe that they all act different.
Some obey because of a pure desire to please the alpha of the pack. Others have a greater desire for the toy or treat. Each dog is different and I can’t exactly cross examine the dog. 
That’s called fighting the hypothetical. I gave a specific example of someone who is innocent of possessing drugs but happens to be guilty of a serious crime that would have been undiscovered if his or her rights were not violated. I wanted to know if “I used an unreliable detector that alerted when the thing it detects was not present” was sufficient for this to be tossed every single time in a probable cause hearing. It seems not.
Paranoia much?
You didn’t state this in your original OP. If the car was going the same pace as accompanying traffic, it would not have been stopped in the first place.
And drug dogs are trained to alert on scent, not on command. Your premise is invalid from start to finish.
In this very thread, there’s data cited that is quite damning, indicating that this scenario happens frequently. See the post by Tzigone above, referencing hispanic drivers. Also, there’s a personal account of this very thing happening in the other thread on this subject by John Mace.
So no, it’s not paranoia, it’s a common tactic used by law enforcement. Maybe the benefits exceed the costs - no civil right is absolute - but you should research the matter.
Yes. California’s “Basic Speed Law”
The junk science refers to false positives, not successful hits.
That law says you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. It does NOT say you can exceed the speed limit.
Yes it does. If it is safe to drive 55 and the speed limit is 45 AND there has not been a traffic study justifying the 45 mph, the courts have interpreted BSL as saying you can exceed the speed limit up to 55 mph.
Please provide a cite from a Court.