A Stitch in Haste

One of the arguments used in defense of intrusive dog sniffs of -- well, of just about everything at this point -- is that the dogs are only sniffing for contraband such as narcotics.

Well, flush that argument down the toilet along with your white powdery substances:

Three Devon and Cornwall [U.K.] Police dogs have just completed a training course to enable them sniff out large sums of hidden money.

They have been working in South Wales to find cash being smuggled through the South West's main airports and ports. They are also able to locate hidden money during raids on properties.
...
Mr Jordan said: "The force will be allowed to keep up to 30% of the criminals' money the dogs find."
...
The force's sniffer dogs are called to about 1,000 incidents a year.

I have no idea how common “money-sniffing dogs” are in law enforcement, but the last time I checked, the simple act of possessing currency was, without more, perfectly legal.

So now it’s not “just illegal substances,” the petard by which the Supreme Court has hoisted its entire sniff dog jurisprudence. No, now the dogs are able to sniff out legal substances that have a (potential) connection to illegal substances.

What’s next? Training the dogs to sniff out leather briefcases, which might hold money that might be connected to contraband?

And what of this 30% “finder’s fee” the police get to keep? No moral hazard problems there, I’m sure -- we all know the police never cheat.

The more BBC newsfeeds I read, the more this whole “ignore foreign law” concept is starting to win me over.