....and water will likely get wet.
Did you actually read the article? They weren't his fare, he was not driving to, picking up, or scheduled to pick up a fare. There is no proof to the contrary.
The extra commercial coverage is for the passenger(s). I guess there's the fringe case where the driver actually runs over the fare but I would bet Uber would take the hit on that one.
But it's not in the handler's best interests to claim that their dog alerted them to the presence of drugs when they don't actually find any because that just makes them look stupid.
And you know this how?
All they need to say is that there *were* drugs in the car or that wad of cash has drug residue on it. There's no formal review process for use of the dogs and a lot of times they are used as a threat to people who refuse a voluntary search of their car without any real cause.
If you think a K9 is going to be called out and they are just going to walk away when he doesn't hit you are seriously deluding yourself.
No one here is questing the ability of the dogs, they are questioning the integrity of their handlers.
Yes. We should be privy to a hell of a lot more data outside of the police departments. It would go a very long way in fixing some very serious issues with accountability.
He's suggesting that dogs can easily be manipulated to do what their handler wants and only the handler is the one who interprets what the trigger means.
I can wink at my dog and it will sit, that took like a week and the dog is far from highly trained.
One reason: They, or the handling officer are held to no accountability if they are wrong.
We aren't privy to the data but I will bet the 'hit' rate when a dog is called to the scene of a traffic stop is nearing 100%. And god forbid if they really think they are right, they can take your car and dismantle it.
If they are wrong...then what? Sorry about your constitutional rights.
I'm all for dogs being used to assist in a search once probable cause is established. Using them and only them as probable cause obviously can cause problems because only the handle will know what that means.
What was the reasonable cause?
...in a pretty blatant violation of the 4th. Pretty scary even though the case was won.
IANAL but from what I gather is basically the dissent is that the violation of the 4th isn't that *unreasonable* so it's ok.
(not to mention drug dogs are complete BS anyway)
Yea, the working class parents of four should pay more taxes than the DINK's that make 7 figures and save it all.
Seems like a very non-brain-dead policy.
Actually it's the way we are going anyway. Fees, fines, and local taxes keep going up to support the tax cuts given to businesses and the ultra-rich. It's about as regressive as you can get.
Good points, a single point of access to all of my passwords and the sites they go to makes me uneasy though.
I guess it's kind of moot anyway because people who actually think about password security in the slightest are very unlikely to have problems unless they are high profile and people are actively seeking for ways into their specific accounts.
It would seem like there would be a standard that all websites could adhere to instead of whatever the whim of the security guy is.
A site dependent key to your phrase?
Site specific(first thrid and fifth chars of the domain (sah for slashdot.org)): sahcorrecthorsebatterystaple
Seems pretty ironclad even if the password gets exposed. I guess someone who really wanted *your* particular password could figure out the method but all of those things coming into alignment seems like the edge of edgiest cases.
The biggest problem I see is that a lot of the sites that really should have the most secure passwords (banks, etc) limit length for some unthinkable reason.
(90 day evaluation)
$250 night hotel
$150 day meals/drinks
$100 day etc
Pretty standard weekend out for a middle/upper class person.
Anyway it's an absurdly ridiculous fine. I will never drive through there and no one else should.
Community service and points.