[JustSayNoToNannies]

In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling, The Rutherford Institute documented empirical research showing dog alerts are not inherently reliable. One recent study at the University of California—Davis, showed that in a test where handlers were told drugs might be found at the test site, but no drugs were present, dogs gave false positive alerts an astonishing 85% of the time. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a related case, Florida v. Jardines, which challenges the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police to carry out warrantless searches of private homes. The Rutherford Institute also filed an amicus brief in Florida v. Jardines. (Excerpt)

Handlers' Beliefs Influence Drug Sniffing Dogs' Performance-UC Davis Study-18 Dog Detection Teams, Over 200 False Positives

Good finds! Evidence trumps bluster every time.

[Alaska Wolf]

Evidence trumps bluster every time.

So why do you bluster? Why do you avoid answering the questions posed to you, LIE berTARDian? Are you too lazy to do the research or just too dumb?

Florida v. Jardines (11-564)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-564

[JustSayNoToNannies]

FYI, the original paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html