>All that matters is if an officer feels like fucking up your day.
This is what most people don't seem to get. Devices like the ADE 651 or the GT200 were bought by the thousands by law enforcement agencies worldwide, not because they were stupid, but instead, so they could have another "data point" against you that they can use at their discretion.
"Sorry, this dot blinked three times so I'm gonna have to detain you: It's standard procedure, I'm only doing my job."
What's relevant isn't whether a technology or forensic discipline is good, just whether courts will accept it.
Antonin Scalia (in)famously commented in one of the Supreme Court's dog-sniff 4th Amendment cases that obviously the police would want dogs that didn't produce false positive alerts, since they wouldn't want to waste their time searching where there were no drugs. The resulting caselaw sets up a situation where a dog can be wrong over half the time and still be used.
The concept that "probable cause on four legs" would be used simply in order to get to search where they otherwise couldn't was apparently unthinkable.
This is what most people don't seem to get. Devices like the ADE 651 or the GT200 were bought by the thousands by law enforcement agencies worldwide, not because they were stupid, but instead, so they could have another "data point" against you that they can use at their discretion.
"Sorry, this dot blinked three times so I'm gonna have to detain you: It's standard procedure, I'm only doing my job."