Although respondant argues that error rates, particularly the existence of false positives, call into question the premise that drug detection dogs alert only to contraband, the record contains no evidence or findings that support his argument.
If false positives are a real problem, Caballes needs a new lawyer.
Besides... Cops can't be required to present undeniable proof before being allowed search a car. So even if a dog sometimes alerts officers to something other than contraband, as long as it's reasonable to assume contraband is probably present... the search should be legal.
How would false positives be documented?
Regardless, shouldn't the rate of sucess need to be pretty high? I'm not saying it's not - I'm just saying that shouldn't be a crap shoot.