“They didn’t do that. Instead, they argued on appeal that a drug dog alerting on a smell doesn’t provide probable cause.”
The point is not whether the guy was guilty, the point is the law was expanded to give “probable cause” based on the presence or absence of a dog.
You may or may not have stuff you’d rather cops not find in your car. Now you have no presumption of innocence - they will search your car. Depending on the cop, they may or may not find something in your car when they search.
there will be more spending on police dogs now, because the police dogs give police more “flexibility” when dealing with citizens who may simply not wish to be searched.
There is all manner of mischief possible here - all because of a dog being there.
Who is there to determine if the dog's behavior constitutes an "alert?" No one except the police officer. Unless you're in the habit of bringing an animal behavioral expert with you at all times to testify in court, the presence of a dog gives LEOs a legal loophole to search at will. Because cops lie. In fact, they take classes to learn how to lie, to facilitate interrogations.