[rushfreedom]

I agree with you Bigs.

Lets remember a few facts. The driver was stopped for speeding. 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. I see no violation in freedom.

Think about a Meth house. If you can smell the production of Meth then you have "probable cause" to search it. You would not argue that a home owners rights are violated in this case would you?

Those that do not agree with this ruling should think again. When I read this thread I thought I was reading the DU!

Does anyone know who was defending the druggie? Was it the ACLU?

[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).