2nd Hand Information, but a disgrace none the less

[1-Old-Man]

A close friend and very active Progressive stopped by the house yesterday for a chat, something he does a couple of times a month. His visits are always a pleasure and usually there is something to be learned about the political workings of northern West Virginia. Something he told me about yesterday came as quite a shock to me, but at the same time it didn't surprise me in the least. Here's the deal.

Jack, who is my friend, talks to everyone. He is honestly interested in people and is one of the very few people I've ever known who actually pays attention to what others have to say and gives their ideas - like them or not - fair consideration. The person he was talking to that spurred what he told me had an interesting job. The fellow was a police officer (County Sheriff's Department) and one of his duties is unique in the Department. He was, and is, the fellow tasked with the continuing training of the Counties' "police dogs".

A major use of police dogs in this County is in surveying stopped cars for drugs. If a vehicle is stopped and the Officer sees fit he will call for one of the K-9 Units who will come to the scene of the traffic stop so that the dog can be released to sniff around the vehicle. The dogs are well trained (by the guy my friend was talking to) to give a specific and excited response if they sense the presence of illicit drugs. If the dog gives this response it is considered sufficient evidence that probable cause exists for the Police to do a through search of the Vehicle. That's how its done here, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if its how its done where you live too.

Now here is the thing, what the dog trainer told my friend. The dogs are trained to give exactly the same excited response if the Officer gives a barely noticeable hand signal to the animal. So if the cop stops you and doesn't like you looks he calls for the dog and with the flip of the wrist he gets himself instant probable cause, and no matter that the damned dog never sensed a single thing. Trust me, if they are doing it here they are doing it where you live too.

Nice, huh?

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Kick n/t

[Scuba]

2. Sniffer Dogs Get it wrong 4 out of 5 times ...

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong-four-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html

A RECORD 80 per cent of sniffer dog searches for drugs resulted in ''false positives'' this year, figures show.

The figures obtained from the state government in response to parliamentary questions on notice show 14,102 searches were conducted after a dog sat next to a person, indicating they might be carrying drugs. But, in 11,248 cases, no drugs were found.

Only 2854 searches - 20 per cent - in the first nine months of this year, resulted in drugs being found, the figures show.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Last year, of the 15,779 searches conducted after police-dog identification, no drugs were found in 11,694 cases. Drugs were found in 4085 cases, resulting in a ''false positive'' rate of 74 per cent, said the Greens MP David Shoebridge, who obtained the figures.

[hughee99]

3. I wonder if these two stories are related?

When a dog gives the "I found drugs" reaction based on some signal the officer gave and not the scent of drugs, after the cops search the car and find nothing, they'll blame the dog for a false positive. The dog, meanwhile, is thinking "What the fuck, who said anything about drugs? I didn't. And now these assholes are blaming ME for getting it wrong."

[Scuba]

4. Only a cynical person would suspect the police of such foul behavior.

But then not matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up!

[hunter]

5. The police would use dowsing rods if they thought they could get away with it.

The military did it in Iraq with "bomb detectors" that allowed them to harass anyone they wanted to, and it was a pretty good money laundering tool also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html?_r=0

Unfortunately the scam came apart when professional skeptics like James Randi questioned it.

But Randi missed the point. Sure, maybe a few ignorant soldiers, and a few guilty terrorists, actually believed the nonsense, but "bomb detection" wasn't the actual purpose of the devices. Like dogs they are used as tools for intimidating "suspects," innocent or not.

The actual tools of a police state are fear and intimidation. The dogs, the polygraph and drug tests, the bomb dowsing rods, even the guns and expensive SWAT team paraphernalia are mere stage props. The job is done when the suspects feel intimidated.