Because of a column I wrote regarding the use of
drug-sniffing dogs, some have suggested I support drug dealers. I do not. I
support the rights enumerated in our constitution. I support law enforcement,
when they follow the rules.
In last week’s column, I questioned how many drug-sniffing
dog searches resulted in a dog that alerted and nothing illegal was discovered.
Those statistics are not made available to us. I said it is possible to teach a
dog to alert on cue.
In Nevada, three police officers who were participants in
that state’s K-9 drug detection program sued the state, the city of Las Vegas
and numerous other defendants, when they were relieved of their duties for
refusing to participate in a “trick pony” program that encouraged handlers to
train their dogs to alert from handler cues rather than from drugs.
A study by the University of California, Davis tested the
reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs. Eighteen police dogs and their
handlers participated. The test was to go through a room and sniff out all the
drugs and explosives.
But there were no drugs or explosives. In order to pass the
test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and find nothing.
In 144 runs, the dogs found nothing 21 times. That is a failure rate of 85
percent. That should be reason enough for judges and juries to be skeptical of
drug-sniffing dogs.
What does it matter as long as they get the drug dealers?
Ask the 4,932 people who were issued “Courtesy Warnings” during the Rally –
more than twice the number of arrests and citations (2071). Nearly 5,000 people
were detained and were issued a “Courtesy Warning.” How many were subjected to
searches?
I’m no stranger to being stopped during the rally, because
for 20 years, I was seen leaving the Buffalo Chip (where I worked) after a
concert. Prior to that, I covered music at the Rally for a publication.
One year, I was stopped three times in as many days. The
reason given for all three stops was I was driving a car matching the
description of one law enforcement was looking for. Three officers. Two
vehicles. What do you suppose the odds were police were looking for both a 1995
Taurus and a 1988 Chevy truck at the same time?
My first “Courtesy Warning” came in 2003 for “lane driving”
meaning I was driving in my lane. According to South Dakota Codified Law,
32-26-6, a driver is required to drive in his lane. After determining I wasn’t
breaking any law, I was issued a “Courtesy Warning” for obeying the law. As a
local, I was disgusted. Imagine what those 4,932 people will tell people back
home about their South Dakota vacation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Compose a username. We will delete comments posted under the name, "Anonymous." It's tedious and boring to view comments posted under "Anonymous."
If you don't want to register with Blogger, that's fine; just click the little circle in front of "Name/URL," then write something in the box that appears. Even your actual name if you like it.
You'll also have to write in the letters/numbers that appear in the image box to prove you are human. Thanks for humoring us. The comments will be much more entertaining with a variety of user handles.
If you have trouble reading the words you have to type in before you publish comments, click the recycle button until something comes up that you can read.