They have the "right" to detain you until they can get a drug sniffing dog on the scene, if you have large amounts of big bills, they do have cocaine residue on them.
I've seen studies where nearly 100% of hundred dollar bills in circulation have cocaine residue on them.
Damn'd if you do and damn'd if you don't.
“They have the ‘right’ to detain you until they can get a drug sniffing dog on the scene”
Not the right, exactly, but the power to detain you so long as the “reasonable suspicion” standard is met. I don’t know about the dogs, persay, but I could easily believe the courts have ruled that since smells float freely around in the air you do not have an expectation of privacy over them. A dog’s nose is obviously a very sophisticated tool and completely outside of human experience, but whatever. The day cops can use x-ray vision goggles to look through your house—which basically they can with infrared and other cameras—is the day courts will allow that, too. I’ll assume the reason they rely on dogs as they do is that it enables them to circumvent the petty need for warrants.
Even so, it shouldn’t matter. Firstly because when cops ask you if you consent to a search they’re casually fishing. it doesn’t mean they want to hang around until a dog gets there, let alone fill out paper work or possibly appear before a judge to explain themselves. They’ll likely move on in the face of stonewalling, unless you piss them off, they’re having a bad day, or they don’t like the clothes you’re wearing, etc.
Still, it shouldn’t matter. Money is not drugs, no matter how much it smells of drugs. Property should not be taken without due process, and assuming objects are guilty until proven innocent is not due process. If you want to understand why, check out Bennis v. Michigan, one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. Not that it’ll tell you, since the majority’s reasoning amounts to: because we say so.