The main gist of which is the difference between 'concrete' and 'statistical', which seems to be very different from the way many of use think about 'reasonable'.
The article certainly indicates that you don't need 85% certainty to have probable cause. While officers can have pretty high accuracy rates to their guesses, they need a 'concrete' piece of evidence to point to so they can have probably cause. Drug dogs are being used to create this concrete reason, but this has more to do with their perceived reliability than their actual effectiveness reliability.
My biggest concern with the points that this article raises is that it seems like the dogs are being trained to reliably provide probable cause rather than being trained to provide reliable probable cause.
The main gist of which is the difference between 'concrete' and 'statistical', which seems to be very different from the way many of use think about 'reasonable'.
The article certainly indicates that you don't need 85% certainty to have probable cause. While officers can have pretty high accuracy rates to their guesses, they need a 'concrete' piece of evidence to point to so they can have probably cause. Drug dogs are being used to create this concrete reason, but this has more to do with their perceived reliability than their actual effectiveness reliability.
My biggest concern with the points that this article raises is that it seems like the dogs are being trained to reliably provide probable cause rather than being trained to provide reliable probable cause.