Pubdate: Thu, 31 Jan 2002
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Copyright: 2002 Boulder Weekly
Contact:  http://www.boulderweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/57
Author: Stephen Young

DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS

I found the story "Hounding the Public" informative, and I think 
Wayne Laugesen did a good job getting the perspectives of supporters 
and detractors of "sniffer dogs" ("Drug-sniffing dogs," cover story, 
Jan. 17-23).

The one thing that was missing, however, was any indication of how 
reliable the dogs really are, particularly in the case of drug 
searches. Last year, drug charges against a Tennessee couple were 
dismissed after a judge determined the drug-sniffing dog that led 
police to a drug stash was more likely to be wrong than right (see: 
www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1376/a08.html?1283 for the story).

Testimony in the case showed that the dog indicated drugs 225 times 
over two years, but officers found drugs in only 80 of those cases. 
Defense lawyers in that case were smart enough to check the record, 
but how often does that happen?

This reminds me of urine testing, where the automatic assumption is 
that the tests must be right, even though there are plenty of false 
positives (and false negatives) reported every year.

It's yet another price we pay for the ridiculous war on drugs-putting 
more faith in pee and animals than we do in our fellow man. Dogs and 
urine analysis have their own dangerous flaws, and those flaws can 
hurt people more than they help.

STEPHEN YOUNG Roselle, Ill.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh