This has nothing to do with a driver's obligation to interpret the ruling, as drivers don't litigate the reasonableness of a search with the officer who stops them - ever. This has 100% to do with the officer now having, fortunately, to articulate his causation and progression argument in front of a judge. The officer no longer has a free pass to use a singular canine alert, with no other corroborating facts from which he could have previously used to substantiate the veracity of his probable cause argument. A driver who wants to get in to a Mapp, Gant, or Rodriguez debate session with an officer, no matter the officers legal acumen or lack thereof, is wasting his breath. Police, on a daily basis, use ineptitude, ignorance, and neglect while illegally performing searches. Point is, the COA's holding in this decision, like the cases mentioned above, isn't going to change much in the way the police operate; Fortunately, it offers a better chance to argue, later, the merits of the stop