Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet | Hacker News Reader

It actually makes sense for law enforcement even knowing the device does nothing because it can be used to give them probable cause to search somewhere they wouldn't otherwise legally be able to search. When the shit hits the fan the company that sold it takes the fall, which is part of what the police were paying for.

Perhaps a similar logic is at work for the military, but one would think they'd be more concerned with actual efficacy of such a device so it seems more likely it was just collusion between purchasers and sellers to siphon tax money.

View on HN

Just like those dogs that indicate the presence of drugs. Except of course when there aren't any. I've had my car searched a couple of times at the Canadian/American border because a dog gave a signal. Given the number of times I've crossed that border the false positive rate must be ridiculously high.

Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext. I'm about as anti-drugs as you'll find and if those dogs are responding to my car then they'll respond to any car.

US LEOs are big on traffic stops + delay tactics to buy time to have the drug dog arrive and sniff a car. Back when the show "Live PD" was on it was used heavily and officer calling a "hit" on the dog in some areas sometimes seemed like a stretch.

Coworker of mine was a sheriff deputy in Indiana and he confirmed this was a common practice.

Oh wow! I've never even considered that. I wonder if the dogs pick up on subtle behavior cues from their handlers, which the handler may not even be aware of. The dog ends up giving a seemingly legit outlet for some unconscious bias.

An officer can give the dog a subtle cue to alert. Happens all the time.

Reminds me of Clever Hans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

> Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext.

To find other "bycatch" - cash to confiscate, for example, or the gun that might be forgotten after the last hunting ride, or a pack of medicine without a prescription.

In the end it's a game of probability - assume that out of 1000 cars 1% (10 cars) have something that's not an illegal drug, but still illegal. Now, police are usually banned from warrant-less searches of vehicles for a good reason, so assuming they would follow their own rules, they would possibly only search the one car of the dude with red eyes, and the other potential hits would be missed.

Now, with a "trained dog", they have the legal authority to conduct a warrant-less search - which in turn enables more insidious stuff such as racial profiling the drivers, or simply do a rough check of all cars.

"Drug dogs" are nothing more than an instrument of abuse.

Can't they search for those anyway? It is the pretext that I don't get. You can't refuse the search. So just get it over with and leave the dog out of it.

No they actually can’t in most cases. Without probable cause or permission, an officer is not allowed to execute a search. The dog is used to provide probable cause.

Also, it’s the same with letting an officer into your dwelling: Without a warrant, probable cause, or permission, they cannot legally enter.

Also at the border? I thought customs had a full right to inspect whatever they want there.

No, while crossing the boarder you can be searched without a warrant, permission, or probable cause

All they have to do is say “I smelled weed.”

I also think there's value in tools that allow our subconscious to override our conscious mind when it comes to making tricky decisions. (But never in support of probable cause.)

I'm reminded of the chick sexing story from a while back. About how no one can tell you what to look for to separate male from female chicks. But you can still learn how to do it through trial and error.

A device that basically tells your conscious mind to pause requires that you believe the device is working.

Even better would be training people to deliberately allow their subconscious to make certain decisions.

I don't think the subconscious mind is able to 'make certain decisions', it operates on a whole different level than the conscious mind. But that's a discussion for another time.

Here's the article:

https://psmag.com/magazine/the-lucrative-art-of-chicken-sexi...

Yeah, subconscious decision making is probably the wrong term. "Instinctual" decision making?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com