Offic s used to obtain the search warrant for Scull's home and the state of the law at the time the search warrant was issued, we conclude that the police " 'acted in the objectively reasonable belief that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment'" when they executed the search warrant and searched Scull's home. See Dearborn, 327 Wis. 2d 252, ¶ 33 (citation omitted). As such, application of the exclusionary rule in this case would not act to "deter police misconduct" nor would the deterrent benefits of the rule "outweigh the substantial costs to the truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives of the criminal justice system." See id,., ¶ 38. Therefore, we conclude that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in this case, a , 1187, 1191 (D. Colo. 2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tarazon-Silva, 960 F. Supp.
holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment holding canine sniff of an unattended vehicle parked outside the curtilage of defendants home was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that a dog sniff outside the defendants door in his apartment building was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment so long as the police were lawfully present in the hallway when the search occurred holding that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the hallway of an apartment building where the building door was unlocked and the hallway was easily accessible to the public