Sorry - I edited my post multiple times after posting it to clean it up and increase quality. Some of your response (especially the first paragraph) is now conf

Sorry - I edited my post multiple times after posting it to clean it up and increase quality. Some of your response (especially the first paragraph) is now confusing. That was my fault. I agree with you mostly - especially on the discussion of what "probable cause" should be defined as and what constitutes a "random" search, as just an example of some of the ethical issues of interest here. That is a debate to have and even one I think this community is well equipped to discuss, but it was not something I was trying to comment on. I was only making the point that it wasn't fair to jump on the 93% as though it was representative of the problem. I am not taking any ethical or defensive position of drug dogs here.