Jump to content

The Greens Say Get Rid Of Sniffer Dogs


samoyedman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was taught the Golden Rule (do as you would be done by). I'd rather be blown to bits in my prime doing something that I found satisfying than live to a lonely, depressed, miserable ripe-old age with little that satisfies my inbuilt desires. The dogs to feel sorry for are the social animals kept in solitary confinement in someone's back yard for the duration of their life.

Delightfully put! :)

It seems, tho', that not all Greens agree with DS. I looked up his FB wall, where someone says she's a devoted Green, but has concern about what he's said.

http://www.facebook.com/DavidShoebridgeMLC

Edited by mita
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As posted above, I wrote to the Green MP involved.

He replied saying there was a misunderstanding. Dogs are not being used as a replacement for a more invasive search, they are being used as a justification for a more invasive search. The dog signals. The police, in effect, have a warrant and can go ahead with the search. Statistical review shows a very high rate of false positives here: dogs signal, police search and find nothing. There is ample evidence, including scientific study, to show that handlers can affect their dogs, and direct their signalling in the case where there is no real scent trigger. I think this IS a problem. Police can use dogs to justify almost any search. It's a violation of civil rights . . . and a sign of poor dog training.

I'd think that if dogs were given strong rewards for finding nothing when there was nothing to find . . . and false positives were not rewarded at all . . . not even by the excitement of watching some suspect get searched . .. that the false positive rate would plummet. I'd guess this could be implemented very simply by putting handler/officers on probation is they run up too many false positives and suspending them if the problem continues.

In sum, there is a problem. No need to dump the dogs . . . who have unquestionably high ability to detect scent, plus being much cheaper and more portable than electronic scent detection equivalents. That would be like dumping the judiciary because judges had been writing too many search warrants when there was nothing to find. Better to set up a reward structure that recognises that false positives are a problem.

Edited by sandgrubber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to get real. Dog fighters say their dogs are happiest when fighting, hunters say their dogs are happiest when killing, slave owners say their dogs are happiest when chasing runaways. Dogs have to change with the times. Killing them rather than retraining them says more about the killers than the dogs.

And exacly where is your 'real world'? Around here your solution of 'changing with the times' involves baiting with 1080 which means a long slow painful death for foxes, wild dogs and wildlife alike. So sad when a few Livestock Guardians can do the job so much more humanely. But it seems they are not 'modern' enough for you. I will take the old ways any day.

Statistical review shows a very high rate of false positives here: dogs signal, police search and find nothing. There is ample evidence, including scientific study, to show that handlers can affect their dogs, and direct their signalling in the case where there is no real scent trigger. I think this IS a problem. Police can use dogs to justify almost any search. It's a violation of civil rights . . . and a sign of poor dog training.

Sandgrubber if this is what is happening, and the issue the MP was trying to raise, then yes it needs to be looked at. Not a matter of getting rid of the dogs but modifying the training (of the handlers more than the dogs) to ensure more oversight of false positives.

Edited by espinay2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite sure many dogs enjoy killing.

Why wouldn't they?

Killing means food in a dogs eyes.

My own otherwise gentle labrador greatly enoys hunting, chasing and yes, killing rabbits (though she only ever catches sick or dying ones anyway).

Just because police don't find anything doesn't mean its not there, or the person hasn't been in contact with it recently.

I was picked up by a gorgeous customs beagle and had my bag searched. There was nothing there but I had an apple in there for 3 days (yuck i know) and had recently got rid of it, which is what the dog picked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As posted above, I wrote to the Green MP involved.

He replied saying there was a misunderstanding. Dogs are not being used as a replacement for a more invasive search, they are being used as a justification for a more invasive search. The dog signals. The police, in effect, have a warrant and can go ahead with the search. Statistical review shows a very high rate of false positives here: dogs signal, police search and find nothing. There is ample evidence, including scientific study, to show that handlers can affect their dogs, and direct their signalling in the case where there is no real scent trigger. I think this IS a problem. Police can use dogs to justify almost any search. It's a violation of civil rights . . . and a sign of poor dog training.

I'd think that if dogs were given strong rewards for finding nothing when there was nothing to find . . . and false positives were not rewarded at all . . . not even by the excitement of watching some suspect get searched . .. that the false positive rate would plummet. I'd guess this could be implemented very simply by putting handler/officers on probation is they run up too many false positives and suspending them if the problem continues.

In sum, there is a problem. No need to dump the dogs . . . who have unquestionably high ability to detect scent, plus being much cheaper and more portable than electronic scent detection equivalents. That would be like dumping the judiciary because judges had been writing too many search warrants when there was nothing to find. Better to set up a reward structure that recognises that false positives are a problem.

I agree that violation of civil rights is an issue, and a signalling dog may be the instrument, but where the determination to execute a search exists, doesnt the problem lie in the fact that the handlers/officers in question are acting in this manner? The issue would then be a matter of readdressing the behaviour of the handlers/officers and the supervisory and governance around these units??

Top stuff on writing in and getting a response. But, if the journalist in the original article for this topic has quoted Mr. Shoebridge, it looks like his response was a redirection of what his original topic was, reference to civil claims was only fleeting...

http://www.smh.com.a...0708-1h6sv.html

POLICE sniffer dogs are only identifying drugs or weapons in a small minority of searches in which they are used.

Government figures supplied to the Greens in response to questions on notice show that last year sniffer dogs were involved in 551 searches for firearms or explosives, which identified only five positive cases.

Of the 15,779 searches for illegal drugs, 5087 identified them.

A NSW Greens MP, David Shoebridge, who obtained the figures from the state government, said sniffer dogs had been a ''clear failure'' and ''should be stopped immediately''.

''These figures prove that sniffer dogs are a waste of police resources and the government must commit to an immediate review of their use,'' Mr Shoebridge said.

''When intrusive weapons searches using sniffer dogs have a failure rating of more than 99 per cent, they are more [of] a hindrance to policing than a help.

''In more than two thirds of drug searches involving sniffer dogs, the police are finding no drugs at all.''

Mr Shoebridge said the police drug detection dog unit, consisting of 14 dogs, cost $868,037.39 in the 2002-03 financial year.

''If we assume the same costs applied in the 2003-04 financial year, then each successful supply prosecution in this period cost over $90,000 in drug detection dog costs. Most of these were for small amounts of drugs,'' Mr Shoebridge said. He said he was concerned that police may be subject to civil claims for the intrusive searches ''when the basis on which they are undertaking them is so statistically poor''.

<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As posted above, I wrote to the Green MP involved.

He replied saying there was a misunderstanding. Dogs are not being used as a replacement for a more invasive search, they are being used as a justification for a more invasive search. The dog signals. The police, in effect, have a warrant and can go ahead with the search. Statistical review shows a very high rate of false positives here: dogs signal, police search and find nothing.

Good for you for writing & getting a reply. I noticed in looking up DS's background that he's not only a lawyer, but was also a barrister. So I'd speculate he may have had issues about drug searching rolling around in his head for some time. But with concern about the methods, rather than the means (the dogs).

Seems like the issues warrant more than a brief newspaper article where the methods & the means got flattened into one simplistic statement.

It'd be interesting if those responsible for sniffer dogs were given a right of reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the police can not find drugs on a person a dog has signaled out does not mean that they did not have some in their pocket 10 minutes ago and drop it when they saw the dog.

They smell can linger and as far as the dog is concerned they still smell like they have some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the police can not find drugs on a person a dog has signaled out does not mean that they did not have some in their pocket 10 minutes ago and drop it when they saw the dog.

They smell can linger and as far as the dog is concerned they still smell like they have some.

I'm sure that has happened. But it is still a concern if police are in effect using the dog as a means to search without a warrant. Have a read of this . . .

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j477277481125291/fulltext.html

dogs will give false positives when there's nothing, and the thing they signal is affected by the handler. And I have little doubt that dogs can be trained not to give false positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police don't need a warrant to search someone. They need "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable belief" depending on what power is being utilised. A positive indication from a dog gives that reasonable suspicion, or even belief in certain circumstances.

Dogs (and handlers) should not be punished for indications that provide no positive find. A person may recently used, they may have been sitting in a car where drugs have been smoked or handled. They may have borrowed a jumper from someone who has handled drugs. They can also have drugs hidden internally where a normal police search cannot locate them (and yes, this is a VERY common scenario).

Why train dogs and handlers to do a job and then punish them for factors outside of their control? Can any of us tell a dog what it does and does not smell??

And the comment about placing officers on probation for too many negative searches?? This is on a par with punishing highway patrol officers for not giving out enough tickets! This sort of practice has been known to increase corruption and misuse of power, as individuals try to protect themselves and their jobs.

An increase in negative searches should be a positive indicator - does that mean there are less drugs being carried around??

And the response from the Greens has still not made any mention of the proactive importance of these dogs being out and about.

edit - bad spelling day!

Edited by Alyosha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...