[jacobgreenleaf]

> Far more likely prospect - aren't "K-9 units" widely renowned for corrupt practice, in particular training the dog to react on command to enable illegal searches and the planting of evidence?

I don't see how this plays out. After all, it's not the dog who testifies at court either for a search warrant or at trial - it's the handler, who can lie about whether the dog alerted just as well as they can lie about whatever else would be sufficient to establish probable cause. If you're going to argue that the dog was cued, you might as well argue that the officer lied about the alert, which has nothing to do with dogs and everything to do with the police officer - he could just as easily have said that he smelled marijuana or that he saw contraband.