that they were not. See Oates, 698 P.2d at 816 (government-installed beeper in a 110 Ib. drum of phenyl-acetic acid purchased from a chemical company was a search under Colorado Constitution); Sporleder, 666 P.2d at 139-40 (governmental installation of a pen register is a search under Colorado Constitution); Charnes v. DiGiacomo, 200 Colo. 94, 98-99, 612 P.2d 1117, 1120-21 (1980)(governmental seizure of bank ree-ords violated the Colorado Constitution). Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution applies to the case before us. We therefore distinguish Place, and our recent ruling in People v. Ortega, 34 P.3d 986, 2001 Colo. LEXIS 783 (Colo.2001), both of which were decided under the Fourth Amendment and did not involve a prolonged traffic stop without reasonable suspicion (<HOLDING>); People v. Unruh, 713 P.2d 370, 377-78
holding that a dog sniff of a federal express package was a search holding that a dog sniff search of a safe taken by a burglar from the defendants home was a search holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that dog sniff of dryer vent of house was not a search