Florida's Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of restrictions on the use of drug sniffing dogs. Rex Curry, the defense attorney in the case, has written an interesting piece on the way cops use drug dogs to illegally "fish for drugs."
Drug dogs are covers for lies. Here's how –
1. Cops tell drivers that they should consent to a search of their car
because radio dispatch "has a drug dog on the way over." It is often a lie
told to induce drivers to consent to search. There is no dog on the way.
2. If a dog is or is not "on the way," cops add additional lies to make
drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay
until a dog arrives. Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that
evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to
complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket). Drivers are induced to
consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies.
3. If a dog is enroute, cops let drivers think that they are obliged to
stay even when the cop has no reason to detain drivers any longer. The cop's rationalization is that drivers loiter roadside with cops for no apparent
reason or because drivers enjoy waiting for dog sniffs. Cops take advantage
of drivers who are too stupid (or too meek) to ask if they are free to go,
so that drivers "consent" to unwarranted detention by not leaving.