Though Freeman says he doesn't use Luctor unless he's seen indicators of illegal activity, some law officers use drug dogs during routine traffic stops. That practice is before the Supreme Court, and justices will decide whether people who have given police no reason to suspect illegal activity have a constitutional protection against dog searches.

At issue:

The Supreme Court has tried in recent years to better define people's right to be left alone in their homes and vehicles. In this case, it must clarify earlier opinions that found that the use of drug-sniffing dogs is not necessarily a search that falls under the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches or seizures.

"A sniff is not a search," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan told the justices. Chicago attorney Ralph Meczyk, representing Caballes, countered: "It is accusatory. It is profoundly embarrassing."

Justice Souter got it right at the oral argument:

"We're opening a large vista for dog intrusion," he said, adding that he was worried about officers canvassing garages and neighborhoods with animals. Police "can take a dog to a front door and ring the bell and see what happens."

Just like they do in "knock and talks." I can picture it now, my first Motion To Suppress Knock and Sniff.