at 1031; see also United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644, 649-50 (6th Cir.1998) (stating that Thomas ignored the Supreme Court’s determination in Place that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the possession of contraband, “thus rendering the location of the contraband irrelevant to the Court’s holding that a canine sniff does not constitute a search”); United States v. Roby, 122 F.3d 1120, 1125 (8th Cir.1997) (finding that a dog sniff of a common hotel corridor was not a search); United Stat (1998) (observing that Thomas “would appear to be questionable law”); Rodriguez v. State, 106 S.W.3d 224, 228-29 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (same); Porter v. State, 93 S.W.3d 342, 346-47 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (same); United States v. Tarazon-Silva, 960 F.Supp. 1152, 1162-63 (W.D.Tex.1997) (<HOLDING>). For example, in Colyer, the Court of Appeals
holding that a dog sniff of an express mail package was a search holding that a dog sniff of a federal express package was a search holding that a dog sniff around the perimeter of the defendants home and alert near a dryer vent was not a fourth amendment 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 that dog sniff of dryer vent of house was not a search