Don't blame Karma

Don't blame Karma. The police dog simply followed his training when he helped local agencies impound vehicles that sometimes belonged to innocent motorists in Republic, Washington, an old mining town near the Canadian border.

As a drug detection dog, Karma kept his nose down and treated every suspect the same. Public records show that from the time he arrived in Republic in January 2018 until his handler took a leave of absence to campaign for public office in 2020, Karma gave an "alert" indicating the presence of drugs 100 percent of the time during roadside sniffs outside vehicles.

Whether drivers actually possessed illegal narcotics made no difference. The government gained access to every vehicle that Karma ever sniffed. He essentially created automatic probable cause for searches and seizures, undercutting constitutional guarantees of due process.

Similar patterns abound nationwide, suggesting that Karma's career was not unusual. Lex, a drug detection dog in Illinois, alerted for narcotics 93 percent of the time during roadside sniffs, but was wrong in more than 40 percent of cases. Sella, a drug detection dog in Florida, gave false alerts 53 percent of the time. Bono, a drug detection dog in Virginia, incorrectly indicated the presence of drugs 74 percent of the time.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, shows a financial motive for the snooping in its 2020 report, Policing for Profit. Local, state, and federal agencies have raked in more than $68.8 billion in proceeds since 2000 through a process called civil forfeiture.

The money making scheme, which allows the government to seize and keep assets without a criminal conviction, often starts with a police search, which requires probable cause, which often comes with a K-9 sniff. Institute for Justice clients in Wyoming, Oklahoma, and elsewhere all lost cash and had to fight to get it back after police dogs gave false alerts outside their vehicles.

https://reason.com/2021/05/13/the-police-dog-who-cried-drugs-at-every-traffic-stop/?fbclid=IwAR3hUUOIBSkcX4Cqj2P_J8Urx7CuJLO7EIV4j83o1Xta2TA8FY-CF0u4eR8


If you have done nothing wrong, you got nothing to hide right?

More horseshit that needs to be addressed, but won't.

Proving, once again, that you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

I’m not sure what the point is here? Perhaps I’m missing it.

eddie wrote:I’m not sure what the point is here? Perhaps I’m missing it.

Read
The
Link

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:I’m not sure what the point is here? Perhaps I’m missing it.

Read
The
Link

Well I would assume that most of the basics of the story are in your synopsis.
And
I
Didn’t
Get
It

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:I’m not sure what the point is here? Perhaps I’m missing it.

Read
The
Link

Well I would assume that most of the basics of the story are in your synopsis.
And
I
Didn’t
Get
It

Just to nutshell it, a lot of drug-sniffing dogs alert for drugs most of the time and are often wrong, but their alerts are considered probable cause for police to search people's property and sometimes seize it, and that shouldn't be.

Maddog
didn't
have
to
be
a
prick
about
it

Cheers for the nutshell, it’s what I gathered and I guess I saw nothing to say about it so I thought I’d missed something.

And
No
He
Didn’t.

Ben Reilly wrote:Maddog
didn't
have
to
be
a
prick
about
it

True.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

I post a news story.

People don't read it.

Next time I'll be less prick-ish.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well I would assume that most of the basics of the story are in your synopsis.
And
I
Didn’t
Get
It

Just to nutshell it, a lot of drug-sniffing dogs alert for drugs most of the time and are often wrong, but their alerts are considered probable cause for police to search people's property and sometimes seize it, and that shouldn't be.

Correct. It violates your 4th amendment rights.

Not only seize your property, but detain you and search you even though you don't have any drugs on you.

Maybe Brits don't get the idea of probable cause for search. I'm not sure they have the same rules for things like stop and frisk.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Maddog
didn't
have
to
be
a
prick
about
it

True.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

I post a news story.

People don't read it.

Next time I'll be less prick-ish.    

I did read it! I explained above. I just didn’t click the link as your synopsis was pretty detailed. Chill your beans.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

True.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

I post a news story.

People don't read it.

Next time I'll be less prick-ish.    

I did read it! I explained above. I just didn’t click the link as your synopsis was pretty detailed. Chill your beans.

Cold beans sounds just nasty.

OK, I was mean that night.

I'll reflect on my nastiness for no good reason, and better myself.

Nah don’t worry. I don’t take offence and I certainly don’t want you to change.

And beans are just awesome. Hot or cold.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

True.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

I post a news story.

People don't read it.

Next time I'll be less prick-ish.    

I did read it! I explained above. I just didn’t click the link as your synopsis was pretty detailed. Chill your beans.

Cold beans sounds just nasty.  

OK, I was mean that night.

I'll reflect on my nastiness for no good reason, and better myself.

I like that response, I should say we're all prickish at times, especially me, and I certainly don't think I'm any better about it.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well I would assume that most of the basics of the story are in your synopsis.
And
I
Didn’t
Get
It

Just to nutshell it, a lot of drug-sniffing dogs alert for drugs most of the time and are often wrong, but their alerts are considered probable cause for police to search people's property and sometimes seize it, and that shouldn't be.

Correct. It violates your 4th amendment rights.

Not only seize your property, but detain you and search you even though you don't have any drugs on you.

Maybe Brits don't get the idea of probable cause for search. I'm not sure they have the same rules for things like stop and frisk.

They're a lot like American police, following very similar rules about when it's okay to search someone -- they even have a similar warning to the Miranda spiel U.S. cops are obliged to give.

They are a LOT less shooty, however.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Correct. It violates your 4th amendment rights.

Not only seize your property, but detain you and search you even though you don't have any drugs on you.

Maybe Brits don't get the idea of probable cause for search. I'm not sure they have the same rules for things like stop and frisk.

They're a lot like American police, following very similar rules about when it's okay to search someone -- they even have a similar warning to the Miranda spiel U.S. cops are obliged to give.

They are a LOT less shooty, however.

Pretty sure they can stop and frisk looking for knives and the like, without any probable cause.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/04/stop-and-searches-in-london-soar-after-police-powers-widened

“Stop and search without suspicion is a recipe for state abuse of power and does untold damage to communities’ trust in fair policing. It is the antithesis of the targeted, considered and accountable policy interventions that we really need to address complex problems such as youth violence over the long term.”

The enhanced powers, announced by the Home Office on March 31, reduced the authorisation required for a section 60 from a senior officer to inspector. They also lowered the degree of certainty required by police officers; they must believe only that serious violence “may”, rather than “will”, occur.

Asked if he thought the current powers were sufficient, House told the committee: “I think we are seeing, due to the use of stop and search, a greater awareness among people who might be likely to carry knives, that they might be stopped and searched and therefore I do hope they would leave the knife at home and stop carrying knives.

My experience with British police is they take their time a lot more.  They will watch, and watch, and patiently, smoothly open up a conversation.

I remember when my daughter and I were in London, all jet lagged up, and walking the streets of Soho at 6 am in the morning, looking for breakfast.  An American cop would approach you and demand to know who's the kid, and why are you wandering these streets at this hour.

The Bobbies—who all seem to be about 6' 7"—casually followed and waited until there was a common subject (a street person who looked to be sick, laying in the gutter), and politely opened a conversation: "Aw, he's all right, 'e jus sleeps there.  You're not from 'ere are you?"

Now, that was a nice way to get stopped, yet he was obviously wanting to know what we were all about.  An American cop would be like the cop who stopped the military officer, in Windsor, VA—the clip that was posted.  He would be officious and demanding, even threatening.

British cops are cool…and helpful.

Certainly, our police aren’t the same as a lot of American police. I don’t know why.

Original Quill wrote:My experience with British police is they take their time a lot more.  They will watch, and watch, and patiently, smoothly open up a conversation.

I remember when my daughter and I were in London, all jet lagged up, and walking the streets of Soho at 6 am in the morning, looking for breakfast.  An American cop would approach you and demand to know who's the kid, and why are you wandering these streets at this hour.

The Bobbies—who all seem to be about 6' 7"—casually followed and waited until there was a common subject (a street person who looked to be sick, laying in the gutter), and politely opened a conversation: "Aw, he's all right, 'e jus sleeps there.  You're not from 'ere are you?"

Now, that was a nice way to get stopped, yet he was obviously wanting to know what we were all about.  An American cop would be like the cop who stopped the military officer, in Windsor, VA—the clip that was posted.  He would be officious and demanding, even threatening.

British cops are cool…and helpful.

An American cop wouldn't even interact with you for walking around with your daughter. Not unless someone told them you were doing something illegal to her.

Most you would get from around here is a nod of the head.

Maddog wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/04/stop-and-searches-in-london-soar-after-police-powers-widened

“Stop and search without suspicion is a recipe for state abuse of power and does untold damage to communities’ trust in fair policing. It is the antithesis of the targeted, considered and accountable policy interventions that we really need to address complex problems such as youth violence over the long term.”

The enhanced powers, announced by the Home Office on March 31, reduced the authorisation required for a section 60 from a senior officer to inspector. They also lowered the degree of certainty required by police officers; they must believe only that serious violence “may”, rather than “will”, occur.

Asked if he thought the current powers were sufficient, House told the committee: “I think we are seeing, due to the use of stop and search, a greater awareness among people who might be likely to carry knives, that they might be stopped and searched and therefore I do hope they would leave the knife at home and stop carrying knives.

Yes, they have the stop and kiss program over here, too, and it's equally controversial. The UK is divided, much like the U.S., on whether the stop and kiss program is a good thing or a bad thing.

For those unfamiliar with the stop and kiss program, here's a great overview of the issue:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/04/stop-and-searches-in-london-soar-after-police-powers-widened

“Stop and search without suspicion is a recipe for state abuse of power and does untold damage to communities’ trust in fair policing. It is the antithesis of the targeted, considered and accountable policy interventions that we really need to address complex problems such as youth violence over the long term.”

The enhanced powers, announced by the Home Office on March 31, reduced the authorisation required for a section 60 from a senior officer to inspector. They also lowered the degree of certainty required by police officers; they must believe only that serious violence “may”, rather than “will”, occur.

Asked if he thought the current powers were sufficient, House told the committee: “I think we are seeing, due to the use of stop and search, a greater awareness among people who might be likely to carry knives, that they might be stopped and searched and therefore I do hope they would leave the knife at home and stop carrying knives.

Yes, they have the stop and kiss program over here, too, and it's equally controversial. The UK is divided, much like the U.S., on whether the stop and kiss program is a good thing or a bad thing.

For those unfamiliar with the stop and kiss program, here's a great overview of the issue:

I guess that's better than the "stop and lick" program.