WTF?

[discreet_chaos]

Last night, I picked-up my local biweekly and this morning when I was reading through the "Legal Notices", I saw that the local school district is advertising for bids from Drug Dog Services. If you read through their 2001-2002 Accreditation Application (p. 12), you'll see that it's funded by the "Safe and Drug Free Schools" program. And, staying

Comments

[litos]

I ride the Metro here is D.C. I would be exceptionally pleased if there were dogs at every station, sniffing the crowd for explosives.

Am I giving in to mass hysteria about terrorists? Am I willing to abandon my civil liberties.

Far from it.

However, there are people who would love to get on my train with a bomb. Dogs that sniff for explosives are great. They prevent any "need" to actually search an individual. Those not carrying explosives are in no way inconvienced. You can have all kinds of illegal shit in your bag and no one needs to know, so long as you don't have shit in there that could blow up my train.

NY has instituted random bag searches at its subway stations. If you are selected and refuse to let the cops look through your stuff, you are not allowed to board the train. I am against this and do not know why they don't use dogs.

And, I do not believe that our children do not share the rights we do. I would not object to a drug sniffing dog at the trainstation.
I wouldn't WANT one, but I don't see how I could protest. I disagree with the law, but it is the law. A drug dog is not invasive. The only people I can see who would be inconvienced or violated are those caring.

Being against drug sniffing dogs would be akin to saying that cops are not allowed to arrest those they SEE carrying. Also, if a cop SMELLS drugs on you, that is considered reasonable cause for a search (and, to be honest, it is). Why are dogs any different?

This is a hell of a lot better than the random road checks they set up in Illinois. There the cops are allowed to stop ALL traffic on a road to check for drunken drivers.

That is a violation and a random search.

[litos]

Our civil liberties are not violated by reasonable measures used to enforce the law.

They are violated by legislaters who impose unjust laws.

The law should be ours and we should not be scared of it.

That said, it occurs to me that I may be a bit ignorant about the practicalities involved with dogs.

How sensitive are they?

I'm picturing a gymnasium full of people. The dog walks in and immediately goes up to the person with the bag in his pocket. Which, I would find it hard to believe anyone would call invasive.

You seem to be portaying a situation where everyone entering the gym has to be pawed and sniffed individually. If it's the equivalent of a pat down, that's not okay.

[eparchos]

It also depends on the drugs in question and how well sealed they are.

[discreet_chaos]

I've yet to read back through the posts that happened, while I was away from the machine and I'll have to put them off for a little longer, but a quick search found this text from NY and this video from CA. Both pretty much state that the dogs are led down the line of lockers and they react to one that contains drugs. (Though, there is a little question, as to the CA clip) I still don't know what happens in this town, but if you're in the market, I also ran across this dealer's site.

[eparchos]

For some reason, we have decided that a dog may [sniff people] for a policeman, even though it would be invasive if the policeman himself did so.
That's because cops are assholes and dogs are CUTE! I'd much rather have a dog sniffing me than a cop.