To: Alaska Wolf
96 posted on
02/28/2013 7:55:48 PM PST by
fattigermaster
(Train for life in prison because they are stacking the bricks and setting the bars around you.)
To: fattigermaster
A church was selected as the location for the study, since it was unlikely to have contained either explosives or drugs in the past. Unlikely? That sure is scientific, isn't it? LOL!
To: fattigermaster
You're so funny Why do you avoid answering the questions posed to you, LIE berTARDian?
To: fattigermaster; Alaska Wolf
In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the lower courts ruling, The Rutherford Institute documented empirical research showing dog alerts are not inherently reliable. One recent study at the University of CaliforniaDavis, 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.
102 posted on
03/01/2013 9:17:17 AM PST by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson