>But if the dog is right 55% of the time? This is excellent probable cause for a search. Going back to the original case, even if we assume that every time the

>But if the dog is right 55% of the time? This is excellent probable cause for a search. Going back to the original case, even if we assume that every time the dog doesn't signal there wasn't drugs (so the dog never missed a drug), had the police just searched without bringing in the dog they would've had similar rates. So why isn't the police's 'I think he had drugs, can't give any good reason though' not probable cause if the success rate is nearly 55% when the expected success rate of searching everyone is under 1%?