\u201c[A] general statistical inquiry into the background of individual canine units\u201d should be avoided by the courts. United States v. King, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155647 (D. Kan. October 31, 2012):<\/p>\n
The [Tenth Circuit] further cautioned against a general statistical inquiry into the background of individual canine units:<\/p>\n
[I]t surely goes without saying that a drug dog’s alert establishes probable cause only if that dog is reliable. But none of this means we mount a full-scale statistical inquisition into each dog’s history. Instead, courts typically rely on the dog’s certification as proof of its reliability. After all, it is safe to assume that canine professionals are better equipped than judges to say whether an individual dog is up to snuff. And beyond this, a dog’s credentials provide a bright-line rule for when officers may rely on the dog’s alerts \u2013 a far improvement over requiring them to guess whether the dog’s performance will survive judicial scrutiny after the fact. Of course, if a credentialing organization proved to be a sham, its certification would no longer serve as proof of reliability. But the judicial task, we hold, is so limited: to assessing the reliability of the credentialing organization, not individual dogs. And in this case there is no suggestion that the California Narcotic Canine Association, the organization that credentialed the drug dog in this case, is all smoke and mirrors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[United States v. Ludwidg<\/a>, 641 F.3d 1243, 1251 (10th Cir. 2011)]. (emphasis added, citations omitted).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
OK, so there is no defense to the alleged “well trained” drug dog?<\/p>\n
Cop talk adopted by the court: Not “dog”; it’s now “canine unit.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading