Assuming this is corroborated by more studies, I wonder how long this would take to result in a change in the acceptance of dog sniffs as probable cause. Does anyone know of any precedent or previous situation where such a change happened?
The precedent affects the directions given to the jury by the judge, and can generally only be changed by an appellate court ("the direction given by the judge in x case was incorrect and therefore the conviction should be overturned/the case retried").
Regardless of the direction given, juries are generally entitled to return whatever verdict they want (see jury nullification). If a judge (correctly) directs them that a sniffer dog alert constitutes cause for a search they may still acquit.
Isn't it obvious that I meant "precedent" in the sense of "a jury found this expert's testimony to be credible once, and therefore is likely to do so again"?
Seems like the "for future defense lawyers" should have been enough of a clue to head off the pedantic hair-splitting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States
But, last I checked, polygraphs were required for certain government positions in the U.S, but am having a problem finding a citation for that right now.
It appears some states may allow the results to be presented, but sounds like it cannot be required.