This paper examines the practical consequences of most courts' rational, rather than empirical, epistemology in the context of drug-sniffing dogs. Using the case of Florida v. Harris, this paper criticizes the unscientific attitude of many courts, and argues that, by employing a purely rational epistemology to justify the use of drug-sniffing dogs to establish probable cause, the Court impedes the Constitution's skepticism of, and protection from, arbitrary government intrusions. The paper concludes by proposing a new empirical standard based on the Daubert factors.
George Souri. "Something Smells Rotten: The practical consequences of bad epistemology in the context of drug sniffing dogs." (2012)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/george_souri/3/