mr. garre. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, in the three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not a search, this court has emphasized that a dog sniff is unique, both in terms of the manner in which information is obtained and the nature of the information revealed. as to the latter point, this court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband, and that no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that. >> i mean, that just can't be a proposition that we can accept across the board. nobody under that view has an interest in contraband in their home. the question is, can you find out the contraband? it's just a circular argument. and if -- and in the -- was it the caballes case that talked about that, if i have the right name? that was where the contraband was visible, it was almost like the smoking gun falls out. well, of course, there's no interest in the smoking gun when it falls out in front of you. so i just don't t

and i think as mr. garre speeded but were at the same time they will allow a defendant to question the handler about the training about how the doctors perform in a training camp is that right? >> yes. those questions can be asked but it is critical as mr. garre pointed out that the courts not constitutionally strong a methodologies or hold many towns with expert which is what makes for successful dog training program. because the government has critical inches, life-and-death interests, that it sticks on the reliability of these dogs. so the u.s. marshals use dogs to protect federal judges. the federal protective service is used on sticky bombs out of federal buildings. that esa uses our sticky bombs off of airplanes. ema uses occupying survivors after hurricanes. there are 32 k. 19th in the field right now in new york and new jersey looking for survivors of hurricane sandy. so in situation after situation the government has put its money with mouth isn't and i believe that institutional level these dogs are

the fact is today they're looking for drugs -- >> mr. garre, there's no dispute that dogs can smell what human beings can't. is that correct? it's not that we can find machines to put it on a human being to enhance their sense of smells. dogs can do something human beings can't. >> they have a much better sense of smell, that's right. >> so you have to treat 'em like a guy to think that he is not like technology in terms of augmenting what a human being can do. >> well -- >> he's not augmenting what a human being can do, he's substituting what a human being can do. >> the dogs, no doubt, have an enhanced sense of smell compared to the office, but i think that's not functionally different than using an airplane to look into the house, like in florida v. reilly. i think this case is a lot like that. in florida v. reilly, the officers used a helicopter to fly over the house, and they saw exposed marijuana. here you're using the drug detection law to smell to door of marijuana that is being pumped out of the house into the street, and the people i