Is there anything in the article to support the claim in the title, that the car was "illegally searched"?
As much as it galls me, my understanding is that this kind of thing is procedurally legal. Drug dogs can "alert" based on nonsense, and that forms the pretense for a legal search. The Supreme Court seems willing to say "you can't be held waiting for a drug dog" (Rodriguez v. U.S.), but doesn't seem to be willing to adjudicate the accuracy of those dogs.
My personal belief is that they should be banned, unless we're willing to hold them to a very high accuracy rate. Like, if consequences of a false alert are "career-ending", and not just "Tuesday afternoon".
But as much as I hate this, describing it as "illegal" seems inaccurate.
As much as it galls me, my understanding is that this kind of thing is procedurally legal. Drug dogs can "alert" based on nonsense, and that forms the pretense for a legal search. The Supreme Court seems willing to say "you can't be held waiting for a drug dog" (Rodriguez v. U.S.), but doesn't seem to be willing to adjudicate the accuracy of those dogs.
My personal belief is that they should be banned, unless we're willing to hold them to a very high accuracy rate. Like, if consequences of a false alert are "career-ending", and not just "Tuesday afternoon".
But as much as I hate this, describing it as "illegal" seems inaccurate.