Depends on the price
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Oohhh, does this mean we can stop putting dogs in traumatizing and potentially life threatning situations on the police force?!
AceBonobo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Tangent fun fact: after the reunification of west and east Germany, the patrol dogs for the east German wall were put up for adoption, and found loving homes :)
onslaught545@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
As long as this doesn’t have an 80% false positive rate like the dogs do.
kn33@lemmy.world 2 days ago
That’s a feature, not a bug
hector@lemmy.today 2 days 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.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I don’t think it’s the dogs that have the false positive rate, it’s the handlers.
onslaught545@lemmy.zip 2 days 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.
I know there wasn’t weed in there because I took it out that morning.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 days 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.