Posted on 02/27/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by Kaslin
it is possible that dogs are also being conditioned to respond to additional unintentional human cues.
Because the current study did not include videotape of handler/dog team performance, there is no way to identify which conclusion would be appropriate. Observer coding of dog behavior was not likely to improve the reliability of the data acquired because the double-blind study design had the potential for the observers to be subject to the same biases as the handlers. In fact, it is possible that the observers were subject to greater biases than the handlers, since they were able to observe every dog twice. Therefore, observer coding would have been subject to the same possible explanations as the handlers, and further subject to question according to level of observer experience with working dogs. Future studies should directly explore underlying factors responsible for the false alerts as this will improve development of effective remedies to optimize performance.
it is possible that even highly trained dogs might respond to subtle, unintentional handler cues
When considering alternative explanations for the incorrect responses, it is further possible that some alerts resulted from target scent contamination during initial setup of conditions
Have either of you two LIEberTARDians ever hunted upland game with setters or pointing dogs?
You continue to reinforce that observation.
With that rapier wit, you must be the terror of the fifth grade.
You mean doper LIEberTARDians.
I provided two dozen references and studies
I was totally unimpressed with your alleged two dozen references and studies. Obviously you can't count either. LOL!
The study can conclude whatever it wants. I would trust a trained dog over a university professor or graduate student any day. Obviously you wouldn't. Hopefully you'll never need the services of a guide or service dog.
You believe that because you are just learning to read and write English?
Nobody was asking the university researchers to scent drugs, and if you think a trained dog can design and conduct sound research ... well, that explains a lot about your posts.
NSS!
if you think
I do and obviously you are incapable.
Don’t go away mad. I enjoy squashing LIEberTARDian bugs like you. LOL!
The biggest problem with current practice regarding the Fourth Amendment is that regards as binding factual determinations made by judges at pre-trial hearings, in many cases before defendants have a chance to get evidence which may contradict them. If courts really wanted to protect defendants' right to have factual matters in criminal cases be decided by a jury, they should allow defendants to challenge whether officers were in fact acting on the basis of good-faith probable cause which was genuinely supported by oath or affirmation (meaning, among other things, that a finding of probable cause must not rely upon any hearsay, and that officers seeking a warrant actually had a reasonable belief that they would find what they claimed to be looking for). Jurors should be regarded not to construe against a defendant any evidence gathered contrary to such requirements. Note that the legitimacy of a warrant is not just a question of law: in many cases, the question of whether a search should be considered legitimate will hinge upon the relative credibility of various witnesses, and consequently the issue should be regarded as a question of fact.
With regard to dog-initiated searches, I would posit that defendants have the right to demand records of how often dogs alert, how often searches result from such alerts, and how often such searches find the goods which are searched for. If e.g. only 10% of the searches that result from a particular dog's alerts actually find the materials the dog was trained to detect, regardless of whether the dog was just plain wrong, or was detecting trace amounts of the material, or whatever, the fact remains that officers conducting searches on the basis of the dog's alerts would have really only had a 10% chance of finding anything; that would seem rather skimpy as a basis for "probable cause".
In search and rescue missions, the dog's handlers don't want false positives; they don't decide that they want to search a pile of rubble and then bring in a dog to justify it. If there's nothing in the rubble, they don't want to waste time searching. By contrast, in many cases where dogs alerts are used to justify a search, the police desire to perform the search precedes the dog's alert. Even if there's nothing for the dog to detect, many officers would still rather have the dog alert so as to justify their suspicions, than have the dog remain silent and thus let the suspects go.
What makes you believe bomb and drug dog handlers want false positives? I just can't see what there is to gain. If I'm a bird hunter and my bird dog is making false points one of us is doing something wrong and neither of us is going to be happy until the problem is remedied.
Because a dog with a certificate not worth the paper it's printed on is an effective loophole to abrogate our 4th Amendment rights. The dog "Bono" on whose performane the recent USSC decision rested only found drugs 25% of the times he alerted and yet passed certification by his department with flying colors.
Right now there is a lawsuit by Nevada Highway Patrol officers that their superiors are using "trick ponies" in their canine units...dogs trained to alert on cue from the handler, not because fhey've scented contraband...resulting in unlawful searches and seizures for the agency's financial benefit.
The problem is, drugs could have been present prior to the dogs first scenting them. AFAIK there is no way for a dog to transmit to the handler how old the scent is or what drug may have been present previously.
there is a lawsuit by Nevada Highway Patrol officers
The very officers that you claim can't be trusted and are liars. Can you make up your mind?
Obviously the NHP these three officers are suing can’t be trusted an are liars, since this has been going on since 2008...so if anything, these exceptions prove the rule, don’t they?
Haven’t you claimed that cops in general can’t be trusted and are liars? Yes or no?
Gee, I cannot imagine why.
Other than the big bucks to be gained by confiscation.
If there is nothing there, WTF can be confiscated?
Oh, puh-leeze, you cannot be such an idiot to ignore the monies gained by this drill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.