[steve-b]

If the officer saw a bag of drugs hanging out of the door, he has "probable cause". Would anyone disagree with this? In this case his trained dog smells drugs, he now has "probable cause". Both cases are the same.

Nope. Bringing in a trained dog is a specific inquiry into the person and property of the target -- i.e. a "search" (the Court's sophistries to the contrary notwithstanding).

[MisterKnowItAll]

'Bringing in a trained dog is a specific inquiry into the person and property of the target -- i.e. a "search" (the Court's sophistries to the contrary notwithstanding).'

_Whose_ 'sophistries'? The Court didn't hold that a dog sniff isn't a 'search'. The Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit searches -- just 'unreasonable' ones.

[NJ_gent]

"Bringing in a trained dog is a specific inquiry into the person and property of the target -- i.e. a "search" (the Court's sophistries to the contrary notwithstanding)."

Bingo. People (and the SCOTUS) keep putting the cart before the horse. The dog's sniffing didn't give them probable cause for a search - the dog sniffing was a search.