Since your statement is based on opinion, all I can provide is more case law showing that an exterior sniff by a canine is not a search, nor is it a search tool. Radar guns, laser guns, and metal detectors are not search tools either since none of those are intrusive to the violator. The metal detector may be, but I don't know of any routine enforcement action you'd use one for. While it is true that they are tools used in enforcement, they provide probable cause for a "seizure" for the offense, but not for a search. Here are a few examples of case law showing that an external canine sniff is not a search:
United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit Police use of a narcotics dog to sniff an automobile is not a search.
United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit Mere alerting of a dog trained to alert on contraband or mere walking of the dog around a vehicle does not consbreastute a search.
United States v Maejia (928 F. 2d 810 (1991) Eighth Circuit Otherwise valid traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because officer believes the car is involved in transportation of drugs. Once a trained police dog sniffed a vehicle for narcotics and gave a positive canine alert, that established probable cause to search the vehicle.
United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit Canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle, which is legitimately within the custody of police, is not a search.
and so on...
It's ok for cops to look for stuff too within the same concept. Anything that is in plain view and can be gathered by the senses which leads to probable cause is legitimate. If a car has an odor of contraband escaping to air that is open and free to the public and a canine alerts you to its source, that's the same as a cop seeing a joint in someone's ashtray while standing outside the vehicle.
-- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
