Realistically a police officer in the US does not have to worry about such "illegal threats". Manipulating people into letting them fish for evidence is a prett

Realistically a police officer in the US does not have to worry about such "illegal threats". Manipulating people into letting them fish for evidence is a pretty standard part of the job. Most likely a judge isn't going to throw out a search except when there is an egregious error on LE's part. E.g. if the suspect clearly stated "I do not consent to any searches. Am I being detained? If I am not being detained then I want to leave" and an officer proceeded to search anyway or detained the person, it would probably get thrown out, assuming there was video/audio evidence. If not, it's the cop's word against the defendant's (I'll let you guess whose the judge will believe). But if the cop lies and says you have to wait for a K9 unit, and you believe him without asking if you're being detained, anything that dog finds is likely going to be fair game just as if you were bullied into consenting to a search (a friend of mine once refused consent to a vehicle search and was then told by the officer that such a refusal constituted probable cause, so he relented out of fear). Keep in mind that this is all without probable cause. If they have probable cause, they can detain you and make you wait for a dog. With the Rodriguez case specifically, there was "erratic driving" which is likely enough cause for most judges.