[bigLusr]

The Constitution provides no exception for "if the cops are real sure they'll only find bad stuff".

If the cops thought it did they wouldn't have bothered letting a drug dog sniff the car. They would have just opened the trunk themselves, right? So that's not the issue.

Tell me, if this dog had reacted to beef jerky in this case,... What I also enjoy is how the SCOTUS allows their decision to rest on the infallibility of a dog.

This goes back to whether a dog sniff provides probable cause for the search of the trunk... not whether the cops needed probable cause to conduct a dog sniff. Whoa... Deja vu. The court addressed the second, not the first question. Where have I seen this before? The decision (read it) has nothing to do with the fallibility or infallibility of dogs.

The legitimate interest in privacy covers places, not things... The roof of your car is fair game. The trunk, when closed, is not.

And, then... I assume you believe that a wrapped package is not fair game either?

if you put something under your seat, even if it's an illegal weapon or drug, you do have an expectation of privacy because the location where it is stored is not within plain view.

No. Since you don't have the constitutionally protected right to possess an illegal drug, you can't have the constitutionally protected right to hide that illegal drug. The cop can't look under your seat because if he thinks there's a drug under there and he's wrong your privacy has been unnecessarily violated. On the other hand, the cop can let a dog sniff your trunk because if he thinks there's a drug in there and he's wrong your privacy has not been violated.

And don't bother twisting my words. My statement doesn't imply that if a cop's hunch is right, the joint he found in his illegal search should be used against you. To protect the innocent, you must defend the guilty.

[NJ_gent]

"If the cops thought it did they wouldn't have bothered letting a drug dog sniff the car. They would have just opened the trunk themselves, right? So that's not the issue."

It's part of the issue. The decision that the sniff was not an illegal search was the first part, and the decision that the reaction of the dog provided probable cause for a search is the other. We're assuming the infallibility of dogs if we aren't assuming they'll sometimes make mistakes or react to something other than an illegal drug.

"This goes back to whether a dog sniff provides probable cause for the search of the trunk... not whether the cops needed probable cause to conduct a dog sniff."

That's part of the issue. Personally, I'm less concerned with the perfection of drug-sniffing dogs than I am with their use in dancing around the 4th.

"The court addressed the second, not the first question."

The decision intrinsically addresses it. The sniff must provide probable cause for the search that revealed the drugs by the court's logic. Otherwise, the dog's sniff passing constitutional muster is irrelevant because the search would have been conducted without probable cause and the evidence would have been inadmissible.

"The decision (read it) has nothing to do with the fallibility or infallibility of dogs."

I did - did you? (Hint: Souter's dissent)

"On the other hand, the cop can let a dog sniff your trunk because if he thinks there's a drug in there and he's wrong your privacy has not been violated."

That's the issue at hand. I would disagree because, once again, 'plain view' is being extended beyond the range of what a human being can sense during the normal course of events. That's a road I don't think the founding fathers envisioned us walking when they gave us the 4th. This ranks right up there with the usual 'fishing expeditions' normally shot down by judges. There was no evidence of criminal activity, but the dog was brought in to 'fish' around a bit to see what might just happen to turn up.