I think if it’s true a cop can on purpose or unintentionally cause a dog to give a false positive, they should NEVER be able to use them without a warrant, ANYWHERE.
We’ve all known they can do this with their dogs and there is an incredible harassment power with it. Do not think the power has not been abused, or that it won’t be worse in the future. And there are plenty of cops who aren’t above planting a baggie somewhere then the dog “finds” it. And there goes your freedom, vehicle, and you’re done.
It's true:
Handlers' Beliefs Influence Drug Sniffing Dogs' Performance-UC Davis Study-18 Dog Detection Teams, Over 200 False Positives (thanks to fattigermaster)
The original paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html (amusing discussion of same at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2991974/posts?page=114#114 and following)
You’re spot on:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There isn’t anything in there about “unless you’re walking in the commons or on a public road”. They’ve simply broadened the meaning of unreasonable via the War on Drugs.
You’re spot on:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There isn’t anything in there about “unless you’re walking in the commons or on a public road”. They’ve simply narrowed the meaning of unreasonable via the War on Drugs.