• hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I would not blame the dogs so much is the handlers. The handlers can get a false positive on command.

      But all of these computerized programs also give authorities the ability to initiate false positives you better believe it. From The Unseen higher-ups down to the guy running the program on the ground.

      • onslaught545@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Which is why dogs hitting on something should never be reasonable cause.

        Although I’m a bit biased because a drug dog hitting on Claritin D in my front seat is why I spent 19 weeks in alternative school. Those fuckers picked flakes of what they called weed out of my floorboards.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Man, that sucks.

          And yeah, I agree that a drug dog shouldn’t automatically trigger probable cause, but instead merely reasonable suspicion, meaning they can detain, but not search. They shouldn’t even be able to request a warrant based only on a drug dog hit. They should need multiple articulable reasons to suspect you of a crime to get to the point of a warrant, search, or arrest.

          • onslaught545@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            It worked out for me. I got an entertaining story about being blackmailed by my school board, scout leaders, and local sheriff.

            Plus, I graduated 2 months early because my school just sent over all my work for the semester and I did it in like 2 weeks.