at 672; see Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1015, 175 L.Ed.2d 622 (2009). A defendant satisfies this burden by establishing that a search or seizure occurred without a warrant. Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 672. Once the defendant has made this showing, the burden of proof shifts to the State, which is then required to establish that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to a warrant or was reasonable. Id. at 672-73; Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). Whether a search is reasonable is a question of law that we review de novo. Kothe v. 04 WL 213395, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 5, 2004, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 961, 125 S.Ct. 1726,
holding that appellants privacy interests under the us and texas constitutions were not invaded when officer walked up appellants driveway to allow drug dog to sniff appellants garage door holding that deportation did not cut short appellants parole term regardless of appellants subjective beliefs holding officers articulated reasonable suspicion justified appellants contin ued detention to await canine unit when officer suspected appellant of drug trafficking based on appellants prior arrests for drug offenses appellants lie about his prior criminal history and appellants possession of small jewelers bags used in cocaine trafficking holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment 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