Replies

"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.

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.

Go back and read the majority opinion again. We need not assume that dogs will never make mistakes or will never react to something other than an illegal drug. We need only assume that the dog sniff in and of itself won't reveal any legitimately private information. Nobody even suggested that it did.

The decision intrinsically addresses [the question of whether a positive from a drug dog sniff gives police officers probable cause to search a vehicle].

No. No it doesn't. The SCOTUS didn't meet to decide whether or not Caballes belonged in jail. If they did, then they would have intrinisically addressed the issue. From the opinion: "The question on which we granted certiorari... is narrow: 'Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop'". If Caballes wants to argue that a positive from a drug dog sniff isn't enough for probable cause, he still has that option.

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.

This isn't an extension to plain view. It's an entirely separate exception to the fourth amendment.

This ranks right up there with the usual 'fishing expeditions' normally shot down by judges.

Why do you think judges normally shoot down fishing expeditions? Because those fishing expeditions might let the state know whether or not someone is committing a crime? Or because those fishing expeditions could reveal private information about legal activities in addition to the knowledge that a person did or didn't commit a crime?