As long as this doesn’t have an 80% false positive rate like the dogs do.
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.
I don’t think it’s the dogs that have the false positive rate, it’s the handlers.
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.
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.
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.
kn33@lemmy.world 2 days ago
That’s a feature, not a bug