“However, if a highly trained drug dog alerts at the outside of a vehicle, would a reasonable person conclude drugs are inside?”
Other than the police’ claim that the dog was “highly trained”, how is it possible to interview the dog to ascertain that the “alert” it is indicating is bona fide?
The dog cannot be cross-examined re its behavior.
The dog is introduced into the situation to register an effect where there is a possibility that a certain stimulus might be present. But again, how do we ascertain that the hound actually received “the stimulus” to which it’s producing a response? How do we _know_ that the response is correct, and not a false positive?
The requirement is for a reasonable person to believe it is likely, not that it is guaranteed. No one can be convicted based on a drug dog. It merely is one of the things that can provide probable cause.
The training the dog had received is documented in the case:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf
There is nothing in the case about the use of warrentless searches. The entire case is this question: Might a reasonable person use the behavior of a trained drug dog to conclude there was a reasonable probability?
“Held: Because training and testing records supported Aldo’s reliability in detecting drugs and Harris failed to undermine that evidence, Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s truck. Pp. 5–11.
(a) In testing whether an officer has probable cause to conduct a search, all that is required is the kind of “fair probability” on which “reasonable and prudent [people] act.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235.”
“As discussed previously, probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. By hypothesis, therefore, innocent behavior frequently will provide the basis for a showing of probable cause; to require otherwise would be to sub silentio impose a drastically more rigorous definition of probable cause than the security of our citizens’ demands. We think the Illinois court attempted a too rigid classification of the types of conduct that may be relied upon in seeking to demonstrate probable cause. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 443 U. S. 52, n. 2 (1979). In making a determination of probable cause, the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is “innocent” or “guilty,” but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/213/case.html
Why are dogs routinely used in search and rescue missions?