Florida Supreme Court granted the motion on appeal, ruling that evidence that the dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish the dog’s reliability for purposes of determining probable cause. The court held that the state has the burden of showing the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the dog was reliable by presenting evidence on matters such as training field performance records. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted the state’s request to review the decision. In its amicus brief, The Rutherford Institute documents 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.
Last edited by Blaidd Drwg on Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
It's OK to do this as long as you only do it to people who your prejudices suggest are probably guilty.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
Pinky wrote:It's OK to do this as long as you only do it to people who your prejudices suggest are probably guilty.
Much like evil SUV drivers. While not unconstitutional, it's still keeping with spirit of the stupidity. Let's use the power of the state to punish those your prejudices suggest are evil or wrong.
The power of the state must be used to scourge the unbelievers.
Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of the free man from the slave.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
