

Most traffic-stop searches triggered by police dogs wrong and biased - ck2
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105,0,557797,print.story

======
TNO
"...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.

~~~
locopati
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.

~~~
TNO
"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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes#Majority_opinion)

