Hacker News Reader

"...only 44 percent of those alerts by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia [...] For Hispanic drivers, the success rate was just 27 percent.".

Seems like a significant percentage to me on both accounts. I don't see how the words "only" and "just" are justified.

View on HN

For the other 56% (or 73%) that you've inconvenienced with unconstitutional searches (regardless of what the courts have decided, these violate the 4th amendment pretty clearly), words stronger than 'only' and 'just' are appropriate.

"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment [...]. Official conduct that does not 'compromise any legitimate interest of privacy' is not a search to the Fourth Amendment. We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate,' and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband 'comprises no legitimate privacy interest.'" -- Justice John Paul Stevens, Illinois v. Caballes

The majority opinion seems pretty reasonable to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes#Majority_o...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com