100% Disagree. While dogs can ring positive for coerced, you want to make sure the search is as illegal as possible so that any evidence can be tossed, no evid

100% Disagree. While dogs can ring positive for coerced, you want to make sure the search is as illegal as possible so that any evidence can be tossed, no evidence == no case. A dog can signal falsely for "drugs" but let's say they found $8000, that you have a receipt from the bank? While they will attempt civil forfeiture -- the dog was only for drugs - meaning no drugs found == better attempt to get that case thrown. Same for other medications, or any contraband. For your DUI example, many a lawyer I talked too and in my university days every law/pre-law professor stated if that ever happened, they would always refuse because it does not present evidence easily - a few hours in a hospital lab means any test result then will be delayed, and lets say you were drunk, (something I don't condone) - you now have more time to sober up and the further test results will be farther from when the stop was done. It is much easier to defeat a DUI Charge if there was no evidence at roadside that you were actually impaired. Even if your car is towed and you're billed high for the forced blood test and what not - it is still cheaper than a DUI charge which runs $15,000 nowadays, not including the future insurance waivers/SR-22/FR-44 probably required. You have rights, it is much easier to win a case/have your case dismissed if there is proof the police violated your rights. Lawyers glee and prosecutors will drop cases where there is overt police rights violation. I would say depending on the area, and on your race/skin color is more of a issue if you're being pulled over vs not consenting to a search because bias exists and LEO will try and try more - but with dashcams and such - that's changing, marginally. Though the video of the uber lawyer lately has been making the laps, to the point where that officer in question did get a promotion.