News
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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
You're not wrong, but that reality didn't stop a warrant from being issued or those envelopes from being opened
And justice being served eventually also doesn't help the person get the care they need in a timely manner. Abortions are safer when done earlier in the pregnancy, and often there are more legal hoops that have to be jumped through later in the pregnancy if they're not barred altogether. A court case settled a year or more later doesn't do much to help a woman who needs care now whether it's for immediate physical safety or to prevent her body from being used for life support for another person without her consent.
I don't disagree with any of that.
My point of positivity was for any defendants that are currently serving time or holding a criminal record for any narcotics charges attached from that police dog's (and his handler) prior actions.
Something about "justice deferred"...
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."
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.