339
submitted 2 years ago by Midnight@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 188 points 2 years ago

When I read the headline I thought about the audacity Mississippi had to spend money training dogs to sniff out abortion pills. Then I read the article:

"An employee there had reported seeing someone in the lobby putting pills into hot pink envelopes."

....and....

"Steed, a K-9 handler, arrived with Rip, his narcotics sniffer dog. Rip strode around and, when he got to the pink envelope, sat down. According to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, Steed said this meant the dog had smelled narcotics. "

So no, the police dog can't sniff out abortion pills, instead a dirty cop either signaled his dog to the behavior, or the copy is straight lying about what the dog did.

If anything any defense attorneys must love this. If the police indicate a dog is signaling drugs where there weren't any, then any searches authorized by that dog's actions should be thrown out including any evidence found in a followup human search.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago

So no, the police dog can't sniff out abortion pills, instead a dirty cop either signaled his dog to the behavior, or the copy is straight lying about what the dog did.

You're not wrong, but that reality didn't stop a warrant from being issued or those envelopes from being opened

[-] lido@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 years ago

Because judges usually need the support of the prosecutor and police to get re-elected. So the warrant will be issued, otherwise the judge is "soft on crime". It's never "the judge is strong on Constitutional rights."

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

You’re not wrong, but that reality didn’t stop a warrant from being issued or those envelopes from being opened

Nothing stops police from intervening in any way shape or form. The only thing a warrant does is make the actions or evidence legal for future legal proceedings .

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

Those dogs all operate on signaling from the handling officer.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Those dogs all operate on signaling from the handling officer.

If there is a long pattern of dogs are signaling "drugs" (irrespective of why they're signaling) when there are no drugs found, that sounds like a great angle defense attorneys can use to get any evidence found thrown out of court.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Drug dogs being unreliable in the real world use by police is not a new topic so don't get your hopes up.

https://www.livescience.com/9215-police-dogs-sniff-drugs.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-03/fact-check-are-drug-dogs-incorrect-75-pc-of-the-time/10568410

This real world effectiveness is far lower than lab controlled confirmation that yes, the dogs are able to smell drugs. That doesn't mean they are a reliable reason for police action since they can be following the officer's cues or smelling residual smells when the person doesn't have drugs on them.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 7 points 2 years ago

It's a classic detection theory problem. In this case, pretty much every false alarm doesn't make it to court since the dogs come out before you are ever arrested, and missed detections are also not recorded. So unless cops are actually keeping records on false alarms there's really no way to prosecute this.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

And they'd never collect that date because it would show the low accuracy and they'd lose the pretext for further investigation or arrests.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Why can't the efficacy of these dogs be tested in a lab, just like a clinical drug trial? 100 dogs, 50 shown box containing drugs. 50 shown placebo, handler and lab tech don't know which is which. Then see whether the drugs outperform placebo in getting the dogs to alert.

[-] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

It's not that it can't, it's that it won't. Drug dogs are one of the tools of oppression used by the police.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately they can just say there might have been residual traces of narcotics leading to a positive alert. It doesn't matter that it leads to the search/seizure of an innocent person.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

Well that’s a federal crime, assuming they’re being shipped by the USPS.

Lock them up.

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 years ago

Do you mean that mailing abortion pills is a federal crime, or that interfering with the mail is a federal crime?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Interfering with the US mail is a federal crime. Further, even in states that have banned medicated abortions; both medications have perfectly valid uses outside of abortion (including things not related specifically to women's health altogether.) Neither the USPS nor the cop can know if the drugs are for illegal purposes without filing subpoenas and warrants for that medical information; and probable cause is going to be difficult to get, considering.

It's also a federal crime to interfere with interstate commerce, which is solely the province of the federal government to regulate. Additionally, USPS screen for illegal substances anyway; maybe not every package, but enough to suggest that there shouldn't be local bastards screening them too.

Edit to add: Screwdrivers are commonly used tools for breaking in, they’re way more useful than lockpick sets, for example, and they can be used as a weapon, too.

Possessing a screwdriver, or even carrying one, is not suspicious or illegal. It wouldn’t give a cop probable cause. For that they need other things; this is similar. Having a medication is not sufficient for suspicion. Even having been pregnant is not suspicious; since they’re also used to manage a pregnancy that has failed for other reasons.

In short these asshats need to stop being asshats.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

Ironically, I always carry lockpicks on me.

[-] CityPop@lemmy.today 40 points 2 years ago
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 23 points 2 years ago

The dog isn't doing anything wrong. Most of the time they just alert based on subtle handler behavior anyway.

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Dogs "alerting" has as much grounding in truth as a polygraph test.

Polygraph results are not admissable in court, FYI.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We need an rct where the clinic sends abortion pills to some people and placebo pills to others. Or even to the same person in separate identical packages. Then see if the dogs alert more on the abortion pills or not.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago

This is the future a quarter of Americans are fighting for.

Now if we could just get the other 3/4 out to vote...

[-] Linktank@lemmy.today 18 points 2 years ago

Seems like a good use of taxpayer money...

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

This is why truffles are still so goddamn expensive. These pigs need to work within their scope

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago

Darknet markets have been dealing with drug-sniffing dogs for years. You can wrap the drugs enough that even dogs won't smell it.

This only worked because the dealers had no reason to expect it.

[-] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 years ago

But education is just a waste of money

[-] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

The dog has been meaning to tell you something but you didn’t catch the hint.

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
339 points (98.6% liked)

News

37232 readers
2813 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS