Two things about dogs
1) From what I've heard, I have no trouble believing the dogs actually did detect residual drugs (money, etc.). However, even if we concede that point, a subtle signal to the dogs is not necessarily an act of malice. Consider the case of
Clever Hans, the horse who could solve arithmetic probems. In reality, the horse had no such skill; he merely watched for the reaction of the audience and his handler, who were subconsciously--read that again,
subconsciously--providing feedback. Even if the cops were giving signals to the dog, it's not necessarily an act of malice.
2) That said, I'm not ready to concede that the dogs
didn't smell drugs. In fact, Robo_Railer's statement,
A dog can find a small amount of marijuana, rolled in a rubber glove and sunk inside a fire extinguisher.
if true, is grounds for grave concern.
Why? As several have pointed out, the portion of our money supply "contaminated" with drug residue (usually cocaine, I think) approaches unity. If dogs can smell that small amount of cocaine
we all carry, then dogs are going to alert on all of us. It's arguable whether this represents a false-positive: strictly speaking, it's an accurate positive result, but the test is so sensitive as to flag on what is, essentially, noise. It's accurate and meaningless. The question, then, is this: if dogs are so sensitive as to (accurately) trigger on nearly everybody, are they a worthwhile method of investigation? If the false-
meaningful-positive rate is high enough, are dogs an investigative tool, or a nuisance to the innocent?
Coronoch, Jeff Whilte, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. What is your experience with dogs and trigger rates? Are they really that sensitive? How often do you have a dog alert and not find anything, and what happens to the citizen who experiences such a situation?