The authority is in the fact that trespass, or right to enter, applies only to humans. A dog or a deer cannot trespass. An animal can be denied entry without explanation, except a very specific case of a guide dog, and only because the right belongs to the dog's owner. In some cases there are very sound reasons to keep animals out (allergy, cat in the house, a child, flower beds, phobia, live wires, rat poison, etc.)
Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years
He didn't have to throw a monkey wrench into his dissent. This phrase clearly indicates that dogs are instruments of humans. Instruments are used. In this case the dog was used for an illegal search.
It could be even understood if the LEO took the dog with him because the dog wanted to walk, or it was lonely in the car. But then the dog handler may not pay attention to what the dog indicates. As soon as he does that, the dog transforms from being a companion to being a tool.
but its not a dog, its a *police officer* in this instance...albeit one that cannot articulate its sensory perceptions on a warrant request...
which begs the question, how did the first instance of using a dog not get tossed out by any competent defense attorney, being as though he cannot cross examine the *witness* ???
or, if the dog is just a well calibrated *tool* for smell, like a breathalyser, then the defense could easily show the potential for false positives, and render that evidence moot too...
I know, Rights be damned if the state needs evidence in the WO[some]D and that easy evidence is something that a faithful pooch can acquire...