re: OK Sheriff indicted for bribery, extortion after traffic stop

quote:

---

Drug dogs are notoriously fallible.

---

Here's a great article for anyone interested on the fallibility of drug dogs.

 
Federal appeals court: Drug dog that’s barely more accurate than a coin flip is good enough

quote:

---

 In 2013, the Supreme Court made things worse in Florida v. Harris. In that case, the court unanimously ruled that mere certification of a drug dog was enough to establish a presumption that a drug dog is reliable, regardless of the reputation of the certifying organization, regardless of whether that organization understands and appreciates the importance of training dogs to ignore their handlers’ suspicions, and regardless of the dog’s performance in the real world.

In U.S. v. Bentley, we see just how damaging the Harris decision really was. Lex, the drug dog that searched Bentley’s car, had a 93 percent alert rate. That is, when Lex was called to search a car, he alerted 93 percent of the time. He was basically a probable cause generator. His success rate was much lower, at 59 percent. That is, the police actually found drugs just six of the 10 times Lex told them they would. That means that four of every 10 people Lex alerted to were subjected to a thorough roadside search that produced nothing illegal.

It gets worse. Even a dog that was well trained initially can be conditioned to pick up bad habits once it’s in the field. This is exactly what was happening with Lex. It turns out that Lex’s handler gives the dog a reward every time he alerts, regardless of whether that alert is accurate. Lex isn’t getting rewarded for filtering innocent motorists from guilty ones. He’s being trained to authorize a search, each and every time he’s called to duty.

---

That dog was accurate more often than not, and while the is a bit ridiculous in a criminal case, it bolsters my argument about common sense.

Common sense says the money is nefarious more often than not if you cannot prove otherwise. In no way does that mean it should be seized though.

And there are no universeal training standards for these dogs or their handlers.

It is ludicrous.

And what of the cases of people traveling with $3,000? When does the amount become, via common sense, "drug money"?

The problem is that the officer needs very little justification to categorize it as drug money, and has every incentive to do so.

Did you ever bother to read the linked article I posted earler? If so aren't you bithered by the number of times the court returned the seized goods? Even though these proceedings take place in virtual kangaroo courts with a vested funding interest in keeping the stolen money.

Keep in mind also the return came with strings that blocked the victims seeking restitution for lost time, opportunity, legal fees etc. These are huge shitty disadvantages to put people through. If you are poor or practical you probably have no option to get your money back or won't waste more money trying to get back your stolen property.

For some reason you are sympathizing with the police even though they directly profit from stealing and are protected from appropriate legal penalty - jail. You also seem to defend the practice in general (by referring to people carrying $100K) when the average seizure is a tiny fraction of that - again see the linked article.