that a dog sniff outside a storage unit is not a search be cause the odors detected “were all entirely outside the locker, where anyone who tried could have detected them.” 307 Or. 19, 761 P.2d 1315, 1320 (1988). Appellant has not cited a case in which a dog sniff outside a self-storage unit was held to be a search under the Fourth Amendment, nor has our research revealed one. Appellant argues that the privacy interest in a self-storage unit is greate 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998). Under the rationale followed in Kyllo and Ca-balles for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a person’s expectation of privacy in a storage unit is limited because the unit is not a place where a person seeks refuge or conducts frequent personal activities. Compare State v. Larsen, 650 N.W.2d 144, 149 (Minn.2002) (<HOLDING>). Our interpretation of the decisions of the
holding warrantless entry of residence was justified by need to search for intruders or injured occupants holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest holding that warrantless entry into icefishing house violated fourth amendment because the structure is erected and equipped to protect its occupants from the elements and often provides eating sleeping and other facilities holding that arrest immediately out side of defendants house violated fourth amendment holding that the defendants entry into the foyer of a fraternity house was an entry into a dwelling