posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 06:25 PM
originally posted by: CraftBuilder
I've been designing electronic devices for decades. Flash drives don't have anything in them that every other modern circuit board in every other
electronic devices doesn't have. I call complete BS. It would be like trying to sniff out a bottle cap in a bottle cap factory. "Sir, the dog sniffed
out a bottle cap in that there plastic extruder. We better tear it apart and have a look."
Good luck finding anything in my technology saturated home.
I agree and if you read other articles about how the searches are conducted they provide a little more detail:
he noted that they could distinguish between a television and a hard drive, but not an iPad or computer and a hard drive. Because the dogs
aren't able to tell the difference between one small electronic from another, they're deployed over small areas of space, and police officers handling
them do not carry any electronics on their person. So someone instructing a electronic-sniffing dog needs to leave their iPhone in the police
Then there was Lucky and Flo, a pair of black Labradors sponsored by the MPAA as being the first animals trained to sniff out counterfeit DVDs.
The MPAA told the BBC that the dogs “have been well trained to specifically smell the unique chemicals that go into polycarbonates and the solvents
that glue the DVDs together and they are very, very effective at doing that." Something along those lines may be how dogs sniff out hard drives, but
Lucky and Flo’s trainer admitted the dogs could “find, but cannot distinguish between, CDs and DVDs, burned and replicated disks, or legitimate
and pirate disks.”
What these quote say to me, is that the dog is taught how to alert on nearly anything in a modern home, in order to establish a reason for further
searches and warrants. But, I have a very strong feeling that this will not stand up in court over the long haul, especially with the recent rulings
on encryption and warrantless searches.
So the LEO's employing these dogs think they are so smart, by assuming: "if we train the dogs to alert on ANYTHING we can justify a search or get a
warrant". They are basically trying to broaden the legal limits of the previously successful cell phone sniffing dogs, except now the dog will
"alert" on nearly any electronic device. Tax payers should be outraged, because normally these dogs would be trained for searches based on
established case law, like narcotics or explosives, but in this case they are being trained for something that isn't likely to hold up in court. Also
since most working dogs are not dual-certified these days, they won't be able to reassign the dogs to human remains detection, narcotics or
explosives. But the cost to train them will certainly be the same, albeit for a less useful and legally dubious application. Also these dogs and
handlers don't appear to have an ATF equivalent training certification methodology to work from, so these local departments are basically making it up
as they go (in contrast human remains, firearms, explosives and narcotics have had this kind of national training standards for over 30 years).
Here is a link to that articles:
t on 16-7-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)