Comment by helen___keller

I understand you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument here, but this is actually very similar to what LEO often tries to do today (e.g. searches based on what is smelled / seen inside your car at a traffic stop) and actually iDog might be constitutional.

The constitutional standard for a warrant search is "probable cause", and for a warrantless search you generally also need exigent circumstances. Assuming that a judge is sufficiently satisfied with the iDog's nose, and the iDog was sniffing somewhere public like the sidewalk when it found the meth smell, you could likely establish both probable cause (iDog smells meth) and exigent circumstances (meth labs often blow up, meaning there's emergent danger that cannot risk waiting for a warrant).

That's not to excuse Apple, just to provide a fun backstory on the things law enforcement gets to do in this country.

Another one that was nearly deemed constitutional: in Kyllo v United States, LEOs used thermal imaging to find an Oregon man's house was radiating a high amount of heat indicative of intense grow lights, which they used as probable cause to search the home for an illegal pot growing operation. This was only found unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision in the supreme court. If it were found constitutional, you can imagine we'd have helicopters flying overhead thermal imaging for pot operations today.