DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS

I found the story "Hounding the Public" informative, and I think
Wayne Laugesen did a good job getting the perspectives of supporters
and detractors of "sniffer dogs" ("Drug-sniffing dogs," cover story,
Jan. 17-23).

The one thing that was missing, however, was any indication of how
reliable the dogs really are, particularly in the case of drug
searches. Last year, drug charges against a Tennessee couple were
dismissed after a judge determined the drug-sniffing dog that led
police to a drug stash was more likely to be wrong than right (see:
www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1376/a08.html?1283 for the story).

Testimony in the case showed that the dog indicated drugs 225 times
over two years, but officers found drugs in only 80 of those cases.
Defense lawyers in that case were smart enough to check the record,
but how often does that happen?

This reminds me of urine testing, where the automatic assumption is
that the tests must be right, even though there are plenty of false
positives (and false negatives) reported every year.

It's yet another price we pay for the ridiculous war on drugs-putting
more faith in pee and animals than we do in our fellow man. Dogs and
urine analysis have their own dangerous flaws, and those flaws can
hurt people more than they help.

STEPHEN YOUNG Roselle, Ill.