So what you are all saying is that it should be okay for a police officer on a normal traffic stop for just a regular traffic violation to be able to call in a K9 unit to sniff around a vehicle? And the probable cause to do that would be what? The guy looks like he could be high or selling drugs? Now...its fine if there are actual drugs in the car and the dog works. But what if I get detained for an extra 30 minutes while the K9 officer takes his time to get to the scene and then finds nothing? Or the dog false alerts and the officers find nothing? Oh well...that quick little speeding ticket just turns into a 2 hour stand off. And for what? Because I'm x, y, or z and at higher risk for having drugs?
Why not just have dogs walk around every single concert, or public gathering sniffing people then? I mean...air is free right and the people shouldn't expect any right to privacy when they're just shopping or enjoying some music.
I understand what you mean by having paperwork, but just that initial decision to either call in or use a K9 should always be questioned. Why isn't 100% required? No more beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm not trying to argue against law enforcement, but I'm sure things like Cliff's story still happen, I've watched K9 shows where I'm shocked at what some of the officers have said on camera. On one he just clearly said, "There was a robbery in the area, there are two black males in that vehicle, and the vehicle is leaving the area, so I pulled it over." Somehow...there was no description of the getaway vehicle and they were just pulling over any vehicle with black males inside of it that night. The two vehicles they showed on the show were a huge conversion van and then a small Chevy coupe...explain to me how witnesses couldn't get a good enough description of a vehicle that your range goes from the smallest car on the road to the biggest? What is the REAL reason those cars are getting pulled over?
It happens...there are people with less than stellar ethics and ones that don't trust anyone. The law can't just allow for those people to do whatever they please.
Probable cause isn't needed to have the dog sniff the exterior of a vehicle that has been stopped for an infraction.
Big difference between sniffing "people" and sniffing "vehicles".
Not even doctors are held to a 100% standard. Probable cause is not 100% nor is it "beyond reasonable doubt". It's a legal definition not one made up by canine handlers or law enforcement. It means, basically, it's more likely than less likely or better than chance. If you knew you would win 8 out of 10 times you put a quarter in a slot machine would you continue to play that machine. You aren't guaranteed, it isn't 100%, but it is more likely that you will win than lose.
Didn't see the show you are talking about, but I can tell you from personal experience the wide range of descriptions you get from "eye" witnesses is beyond belief.
I don't know if there are situations such as Cliff described, still going on. I can say, they don't go on around me.
You say the initial decision to use the dog should be questioned. You tell, if I walk a dog around the outside of your vehicle if I've stopped you for a legitimate reason what, the intrusion is. As you clearly stated, the air outside your vehicle is free. People and gatherings are different and addressed by the court differently. Don't mix apples and oranges in a discussion.