Editing Detection dog (section)

====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>