Editing Detection dog (section)

==Criticism==
===Accuracy===

====Australia====
[[File:Drug Dog Newtown Station 2017.webm|thumb|Police and a drug detection dog at [[Newtown railway station, Sydney|Newtown train station]] in [[Sydney]] in 2017]]
In 2001, the Australian state of [[New South Wales]] introduced legislation that granted police the power to use drug detection dogs without a warrant in public places such as licensed venues (venues licensed to serve alcohol), [[Music festival|music festivals]], and [[Sydney Trains|public transport]].<ref name=":2006">{{cite report |url=https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/reports/report-to-parliament/police-powers-drug-detection-dogs-act-2001-review-october-2006 |title=Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001 |date=June 2006 |work=[[Ombudsmen in Australia#New South Wales Ombudsman|New South Wales Ombudsman]] |isbn=1-921131-36-5 |pages=}}</ref>{{rp|1}}

The law was reviewed in 2006 by the [[Ombudsmen in Australia|New South Wales Ombudsman]], who handed down a critical report regarding the use of dogs for drug detection. The report stated that prohibited drugs were found in only 26% of searches following an indication by a drug sniffer dog. Of these, 84% were for small amounts of [[cannabis]] deemed for personal use.<ref name=":2006" />{{Rp|page=29}} Subsequent figures obtained from NSW Police in 2023 revealed that between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2023, officers had conducted 94,535 personal searches (refers to both [[Strip search|strip searches]] and less invasive [[Frisking|frisk]] or "general" searches) resulting from drug detection dog indications, with only 25% resulting in illicit drugs being found.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mcleod |first=Catie |date=9 November 2023 |title=NSW police sniffer dogs incorrectly detect drugs on patrons despite costing taxpayers $46m over past decade |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/nsw-police-sniffer-dogs-incorrectly-detect-illicit-drugs-despite-costing-taxpayers-46m-over-past-decade |work=[[The Guardian]] }}</ref>

In late 2014, reports were first published alleging that NSW Police were routinely using drug detection dog indications as a justification for conducting invasive strip searches, particularly at major events such as music festivals (see [[New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal]]).<ref name=":vice">{{Cite news|last=Gregoire|first=Paul|date=10 October 2014|title=Strip Searches are Now Routine in New South Wales|work=Vice|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/strip-searches-are-routine-at-new-south-wales-music-festivals/}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Corderoy|first=Amy|date=2 December 2014|title=Police in doghouse over strip searches|work=The Sydney Morning Herald|url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/police-in-doghouse-over-strip-searches-20141201-11xpzh.html}}</ref> Data obtained from NSW Police shows that between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2020, officers conducted 27,835 strip searches "in the field" (outside of a police station).<ref name=":unsw">{{Cite book |last1=Sentas |first1=Vicki |url=https://rlc.org.au/sites/default/files/attachments/Rethinking-strip-searches-by-NSW-Police-web_0.pdf |title=Rethinking Strip Searches by NSW Police |last2=Grewcock |first2=Michael |date=August 2019 |publisher=UNSW |isbn=978-0-7334-3877-6 |location=}}</ref>{{Rp|page=25}}<ref name=":lecc final">[https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/news-and-publications/publications/final-report-an-inquiry-into-nsw-police-force-strip-search-practices-15-december-2020.pdf Inquiry into NSW Police Force strip search practices.] Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. December 2020</ref>{{Rp|page=12}} Separate data shows that during the same six-year period, officers conducted 5659 strip searches resulting from drug detection dog indications.<ref name=":lecc final" />{{Rp|page=72}} 

In October 2018, the [[Law Enforcement Conduct Commission]] launched a formal investigation into the use of strip searches by NSW Police.<ref name=":lecc final" />{{Rp|page=ii}} In a final report handed down in December 2020, the commission found that there had been a "significant increase" in the "number and proportion" of strip searches carried out following drug detection dog indications in the five years between 2014 and 2019.<ref name=":lecc final" />{{Rp|page=71}} In July 2022, a [[class action]] was filed in the [[Supreme Court of New South Wales]] on behalf of patrons strip searched at music festivals by NSW Police from July 2016 onwards. Head plaintiff for the class action is a then 27-year-old woman who was wrongly strip searched at the [[Splendour in the Grass]] music festival in 2018 after being stopped by a drug detection dog.<ref>{{Cite news |last=McGowan |first=Michael |date=22 July 2022 |title=Music festival patrons launch class action against NSW police alleging unlawful strip-searches |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/22/music-festival-patrons-launch-class-action-against-nsw-police-alleging-unlawful-strip-searches |work=The Guardian}}</ref>

====United States====
[[File:Washington DC Security Search.JPG|thumb|A detection dog searches a car for explosives at a checkpoint in [[Washington, D.C.]]|221x221px]]
The 1983 Supreme Court decision ''[[United States v. Place]]'' ruled that it did not violate a person's [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment rights]] to have a dog sniff a person's luggage or property in a public place without a [[search warrant]] or [[probable cause]]. This was extended to include routine traffic stops in ''[[Illinois v. Caballes]]'' (2005), provided it does not unreasonably prolong the duration of the stop.<ref>{{cite web |work=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |first=Jacob |last=Sullum |access-date=17 January 2025 |url=https://reason.com/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail/ |title=This Dog Can Send You to Jail |date=31 January 2013 }}</ref> In his dissent, Justice [[David Souter]] observed:
<blockquote>The infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction. Although the Supreme Court of Illinois did not get into the sniffing averages of drug dogs, their supposed infallibility is belied by judicial opinions describing well-trained animals sniffing and alerting with less than perfect accuracy, whether owing to errors by their handlers, the limitations of the dogs themselves, or even the pervasive contamination of currency by cocaine.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/405/ |title=Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) |access-date=17 January 2025 |work=justia.com |date=January 24, 2005 }}</ref></blockquote>

In 2011, civil rights activists claimed that detection dogs responses are influenced by the biases and behaviors of their handlers, which can hinder accuracy.<ref name="tribune">{{cite web |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2011-01-06-ct-met-canine-officers-20110105-story.html |title=Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong |last1=Hinkel |first1=Dan |last2=Mahr |first2=Joe |date=6 January 2011 |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |access-date=5 July 2014}}</ref> Another factor that affects accuracy is residual odors. Residual odors can linger even after illegal materials have been removed from a particular area, and can lead to false alarms. Additionally, very few states have mandatory training, testing, or certification standards for detection dogs.<ref name="tribune"/> This leaves people to question whether they are truly equipped to carry out searches.

The question of the reliability of drug detection dogs was examined in 2013 in the Supreme Court case ''[[Florida v. Harris]]'', which held that courts can presume the accuracy of an alert from a dog that has certification or undergone continuing training. Several ''[[amicus brief]]s'' argued that drug dogs show poor accuracy in the field, with up to 80% of alerts being [[false positive]]s.<ref name=4outof5>{{cite news |last1=Patty |first1=Anna |date=12 December 2011 |newspaper=Sydney Morning Herald |title=Sniffer dogs get it wrong four out of five times |url=https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong-four-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html |access-date=17 January 2025 }}</ref><ref name=NACDL-Brief>{{cite web |last1=Hacker |first1=J.D. |last2=Clutter |first2=M.C. |last3=Spinelli |first3= D. |last4=Chugh |first4=M. |last5=Shaw |first5=W.J. |last6=Owens |first6=A.L. |last7=Shapiro |first7=S.R. |last8=Edwards |first8=E.R. |last9=Ufferman |first9=M. |last10=Rudenstine |first10=S. |last11=Marshall |first11=R.C. |last12=Kayanan |first12=M. |title=Brief of amici curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida in support of respondent |publisher=[[National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers]], [[American Civil Liberties Union]], et al. |url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-817_resp_amcu_nacdl-etal.pdf |access-date=28 October 2012 |date=August 2012 |pages=26 }}</ref> Also in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Florida v. Jardines]]'' that having a drug dog sniff the front porch of a private home is considered to be a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, requiring both probable cause and a search warrant.

False alerts by dogs have led to wrongful convictions.<ref name=alternative>{{cite news |first=Radley |last=Balko |author-link=Radley Balko |date=4 February 2019 |access-date=17 January 2025 |title=The Supreme Court's 'alternative facts' about drug-sniffing dogs |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/05/supreme-courts-alternative-facts-about-drug-sniffing-dogs/ |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] }}</ref> 

Sniffer dogs can be trained to detect crop pests and diseases. A study by the US Department of Agriculture found that sniffer dogs identified trees infected with [[citrus greening disease]] with 99% accuracy; they could detect infection as early as two weeks after onset.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1146/knowable-092120-1 |title=The accidental tree killers |year=2020 |last1=Pain |first1=Stephanie |journal=Knowable Magazine |s2cid=224939766|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Civil rights===
Detection dogs give police the potential to conduct searches without cause, in a manner that is unregulated.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jul/09/drugsandalcohol |work=[[The Guardian]] |title=Sniffer dog checks bite into our civil liberties |date=9 July 2008 |access-date=1 May 2010 |first=Sebastian |last=Saville}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/mar/31/internationalcrime |work=The Guardian |title=Smells suspicious |date=31 March 2008 |access-date=1 May 2010 |first=Amber |last=Marks}}</ref> They are often accused of being motivated more by the state's desire to be seen doing something than by any serious desire to respond to the dangers of drugs use.<ref>{{cite book |last=Race |first=Kane |year=2009 |title=Pleasure Consuming Medicine: The queer politics of drugs |location=Durham |publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=9780822344889}}{{page needed|date=April 2015}}</ref> In June 2012, three [[Nevada Highway Patrol]] officers filed suit against [[Nevada]]'s Director of Public Safety, alleging that he violated the police dog program by intentionally training canines to be "trick ponies"{{snd}} to falsely alert based on cues from their handlers ([[Clever Hans effect]]){{snd}} so as to enable officers to conduct illegal searches of vehicles. The lawsuit claims that in doing so, he and other top Highway Patrol officers had violated the federal [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO Act).<ref name=":0">{{cite web |url=http://www.lvrj.com/news/officers-file-suit-alleging-wrongdoing-in-police-dog-training-program-160469575.html |title=Officers file suit alleging wrongdoing in police dog training program |last=Vogel |first=Ed |date=26 June 2012 |publisher=Las Vegas Review Journal |access-date=11 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120816003253/http://www.lvrj.com/news/officers-file-suit-alleging-wrongdoing-in-police-dog-training-program-160469575.html |archive-date=16 August 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In Norway, students were subjected to a drug search in their classroom by a detection dog. The students didn't have to be present in the room while the dogs searched; however, they were forced to answer questions by the police instead.<ref name="over1000">{{cite web |last=Svarstad |first=Jørgen |title=Over 1000 osloelever narkosjekket |language=no |trans-title=Over 1000 Oslo students drug checked |url=http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Over-1000-osloelever-narkosjekket-6701492.html |access-date=11 September 2012 |work=Aftenposten |date=19 November 2011}}</ref>  An article in ''Tidsskrift for strafferett'', Norway's journal of [[criminal law]], claims that such searches breach [[law of Norway|Norwegian law]].<ref name="over1000"/>

Detector dogs have been used by secret police and security services to support campaigns of political persecution. For example, sweat collected from subjects following interrogation was used by the [[Stasi]] to train dogs to respond to their scent.<ref>{{cite news |date=2019-05-08 |title=Real spies, not Bond, take spotlight at new International Spy Museum (2019) |pages=a4 |work=The Spokesman-Review |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73017559/real-spies-not-bond-take-spotlight-at/ |access-date=2021-03-09}}</ref>