affidavit in support of the search warrant notes that it had been reviewed by an assistant district attorney prior to its submission. Scull does not argue that the court commissioner in this case was not "detached and neutral," nor does he argue that the assistant district attorney who reviewed the affidavit was not "a knowledgeable government attorney." See id. ¶ 17. The search warrant was based upon the affidavit of Officer Weismueller, who averred that he had nineteen years of experience as a police officer. Officer Wiesmueller based his search warrant applica tion on both the tip from the confidential informant who detailed Scull's drug activities, and Voden's alert at Scull's front door. ¶ 18. Officer Wiesmueller explained to the court commissioner in his affidavit th App. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Fitzgerald v. State of Maryland, 864 A.2d
holding that a drug sniff outside defendants locked bedroom door was not a fourth amendment search because it detected only the presence of contraband and did not provide any information about lawful activity over which the defen dant had a legitimate expectation of privacy holding that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to property leading up to and including the threshold of a residence therefore police officers were well within their authority to proceed on the open walkway to the front door where they saw evidence in plain view holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed it was used as a main entrance to the house and it was not protected from observation by passersby