Yes, precisely. The Fourth Amendment doesn't give you a substantive right to conceal crimes. It secures you against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police get a technology that can detect crime without unreasonable searches or seizures, well, then don't commit crimes. (Whether too many things are crimes in the first place is a completely different matter.)

If the police have reasonable suspicion (i.e., based on some legitimate evidence), then this ruling doesn't apply. They can detain the guy for a few minutes to get the dog. This ruling only applies to where the police have no reasonable suspicion and want to detain him anyway. The Fourth Amendment says they don't get to do that.

That has been the case for a long time. A drug dog can walk down the security line at an airport and sniff bags for illicit drugs without violating anyone's privacy. This really is one of those cases where if you don't want the dog to trigger, don't have drugs in your bag.

No, but it is has everything to do with whether the officer can lawfully continue to detain the man. Once the legitimate purpose of the stop is complete, the police have no authority to continue to detain a person. The exception is if, as you say, the officer sees some evidence that provides probable cause of an ongoing or past crime. Then he can extend the detention and take appropriate action.

Because the Constitution totally says that people have substantive right to possess and use drugs. It's right there in the Eleventy-First Amendment!

(Pro tip: If there are laws you don't agree with, the place to address them is the Legislature, not the Court.)

A bullet can also enter a person who has not committed a crime when given a cue by its "handler." Any useful tool can be manipulated by an unethical cop. We either have to live with the fact that useful tools will sometimes be manipulated by corrupt cops, or we have to live without any cops at all. People may disagree on which is better, but those are basically our options.

Regarding your motion, I don't think it would go very far. The fact that the dog can be manipulated doesn't mean that it was in this particular case. It's going to be doubly hard to get the evidence suppressed if the dog alerted on drugs, and it turns out that your client did, in fact, have drugs on his person. "Yes, your honor, this dog is trained to detect drugs, and he did signal that he smelled drugs on my client, but I submit that in fact this dog that is specifically trained to smell drugs didn't actually smell the drugs my client actually had on his person, but was instead responding to a covert signal provided by the arresting officer." You might do better if the dog triggered for drugs, and what the officer actually found was an illegal weapon or something.

Reaching back to law school memories here, but I recall a case (decided in the 80s or 90s?) where the Court ruled that drug-sniffing dogs do not require any suspicion, because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the scent of drugs coming from your stuff. So this ruling just addresses a follow-on question: If the police are permitted to use drug-sniffing dogs at will, can they also detain you without reasonable suspicion and make you wait around for the dog to show up. The answer was a very reasonable "no." If they don't have evidence that you've done something wrong, they can't detain you.

I think this rule is reasonable on both counts. The Fourth Amendment doesn't give you a substantive right to commit crimes and not be found out. It only protects you from unreasonable police procedures. If you are carrying an illegal substance that a dog can detect without invading your privacy, that's your problem. But the police should never be able to detain a citizen for any reason, for any amount of time, without probable cause that the person has committed or is committing a crime. To rule otherwise is to place us in a police state.

The only thing search/detection dog is addicted to is the simple pleasure of working. They're descended from wolves, who live to hunt. They're bred to be incredibly sensitive, nose-wise, and have had their pack instincts morphed into a very gratifying (for them, and their handlers) pleasure in their essentially symbiotic relationship with humans. They love to go out and do stuff, and are raised as pups to get some good clean joy out of accurately differentiating between being right and wrong with their noses. They're addicted to being part of a well organized pack, just like many social animals. Addicted to the drugs or other materials they've learned to identify by the parts-per-billion in the air? Nonsense. They want a pat on the head, their favorite toy as a reward, and a chance to go do it again.

Yes, because being obnoxious and shouting at cops is a super way to show that you're not trying to distract/deflect. Do you do your job better when someone is screaming in your face? Really? Fascinating.

Please cite some actual examples of police dogs being constantly abused. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. About dogs generally, or about their use in quickly showing awareness of explosives, drugs, and other items. They are uncannily accurate once they've been shown the difference between placebos and the real thing. Oh, and you also have no understanding of how the word "placebo" is used.

It is great, that the Fourth Amendment still means something.

Now, how about the Second?

This about making country independent energy-wise too.

Yeah, yeah — and reduce Global Warming, right.

Except electric cars still need energy — so, instead of burning something inside the vehicle, we now have to burn something somewhere else — often enough losing overall. And instead of depending on our own oil, we now need the Chinese to make those wonder-batteries — so our dependence on the potential military rival only grows with each Tesla sold.

But a great idea otherwise — as great as any to come up from the so-called "progressives"... Keep at it.

Yes. And I truly hope you're right. Responsive, though, can be a huge PITA for content designers, but there are plenty of responsive frameworks out there, and they do actually work. Full-on mobile-only only content is generally awful, except for very specific scenarios (track your package, check your balance, etc).

oligarchy of the rich and powerful.

All oligarchies are "of the rich and powerful". If you can not make your point without tautologies, it is probably invalid to begin with.