the warrantless dog sniff violated his federal and state constitutional rights, and the evidence seized as a result of the warrant should be suppressed. When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, appellate courts “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.” State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn.1999). Under the Fourth Amendment, whether a dog sniff is a search depends on (1) the level of a person’s expectation of privacy in the place where the sniff occurs and (2) the level of intrusiveness of the sniff. State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199, 207 (Minn.2005) (citing United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2644-45, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (<HOLDING>)). The intrusiveness of a dog sniff is minimal
holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search holding that feel ing and squeezing exterior of luggage in overhead compartment of bus is not a search under the fourth amendment holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment