sheesh, I think you missed the point. If an officer has probable cause and calls in a dog to find contraband fine. That is different than being randomly scent searched by a canine officer (yes, police dogs enjoy a status of legal officers of the law) without probable cause.

Well I guess we could "nudge" the dog up on the stand so the defendent could "face" him or her but I think your missing the point. A K-9 is a tool just like a flashlight. Contrary to what you might think, officers don't have a bunch of dead time on their hands. They (officer and dog) go through numerous hours of ongoing training just to have that position. Not worth a career ending nudge. The words basis and arrest are key here. Something has caused suspicion to rise in the officer's mind so he uses the dog to confirm his suspicion that there may be something illegal in the vehicle (basis). No alert, no search, no one's time wasted. The officer may still decide to search the car with consent or even with established probable cause but that would have to be well articulated or the case would go nowhere anyway. Alert, search, nothing illegal found, everyone goes on there way with minimal time wasted. Alert, search, and contraband found then we get to that pesky arrest word. Somewhere in this we forgot that there must have been something illegal in the car for them to go to jail. Let us not forget, K-9's can trained to find all sorts of illegal material including illegal money shipments, weapons and bombs. Terrorism anyone?

The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans a broad range of rights. This includes the right to face one’s accusers — as the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him...

The question posed is should "dog scent evidence as a basis for an arrest" be allowed. I don't think this complies with the U.S. Constitution, how can an individual be "confronted with the witnesses against him" when the witness is a dog? I think the work of police dogs is great in protecting the officers, sniffing out drugs or bombs or in search and rescue but I don't think that "scent evidence" is justified as a reason for arrest. This is in the same area as illegal search which, in my opinion, is getting to be easier and easier for law enforcement to implement without just cause.

We cannot continue to let our rights as citizens be trampled in an effot to more easily arrest aleged criminals. There was something yesterday regarding a person who was wrongly convicted and spent 21 years in prison.

How many innocent people's lives are going to be ruined in an effort to stop crime? Even one is too many as far as I am concerned. Crime has existed since the beginning of man and will always exist. Trampling on the rights of citizens in the name of stopping crime is not justified.

Define "dog scent" What is the legal terms?

How do we know the dog isn't alerting to the officer giving him a nudge with his knee? The dog can do all sorts of things with subtle input from his handler and the average person wouldn't notice. The officer then says, "The dog alerted and that is probable cause for a search."

Whoa. Do you know dogs that can talk? How do you know what they are smelling? Could be that leftover hamburger wrapper, or the urine stain from your aunts chihuahua, or who knows what.

A police officer must have probable cause to warrant a search. That would include a "scent search" by a canine officer. This is why the established procedure for canine scent search is to only follow an officer's establishment of probable cause.

I would think that if a search dog lit up on somebody at random, that in itself would be an illegal search.

I think scent evidence is sufficent grounds for a search of a vehicle or person to find contraband and then arrest a suspect for possession of said contraband, but a dog reacting to a scent alone is, in my opinion, insufficent grounds to detain someone.