The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
I would suggest that since dogs cannot be put under direct or cross, the accused cannot face their accuser in court. The cop doesn't smell it, the dog does. I would further say that no warrant is issued, it should not be searched. The whole idea of the cop becoming the judge on the scene and issuing herself a warrant based on her own affirmation is not the intent here. I don't know how it ever got this far out of control.