Why is it not a 4th amendment when k9 use is done based only on a search refusal? The 4th amendment has gone to the dogs

Question

My is why wouldn't an attorney argue that officers are actually manufacturing proble cause on stops there were no reasonable suspicion no unusual actions other than refused search

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

When a person refuses a search, officers may use a K9 unit to conduct a sniff as part of the encounter. The courts have generally allowed this because a refusal can be considered as giving implicit consent to a limited search. This interpretation aligns with the idea that if you decline a search, it doesn't automatically grant full authority to officers, but it does open the door for certain types of investigative actions like K9 sniffing. 
 
An attorney might argue that without reasonable suspicion or specific indicators of wrongdoing, the initial stop itself is unlawful. If the only action taken by the officer was responding to a search refusal without any other suspicious behavior, it could be seen as an attempt to create probable cause artificially. This could potentially violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 
 
However, proving that officers are manufacturing probable cause can be challenging. Courts often look at the totality of the circumstances, and if there were any minor factors contributing to the stop, it might be difficult to demonstrate that there was no reasonable suspicion. Nonetheless, highlighting the lack of initial justification for the stop is a valid strategy in challenging the legality of the K9 search.

Q: Why is it not a 4th amendment when k9 use is done based only on a search refusal? The 4th amendment has gone to the dogs