for the canine sniff would not “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that” this vehicle was engaged in drug trafficking. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (quotations and internal citations omitted). Because there was no reasonable suspicion for the detention necessary to conduct the canine sniff that justified the search, the officer’s actions were not “justified at [their] inception.” See DeLaRosa, 2003 SD 18, ¶ 12, 657 N.W.2d at 688. Therefore, despite the fact that a canine sniff is not a search, the sniff and resulting search were the product of an unconstitutional seizure or detention requiring suppression. See Buchanon, 72 F.3d at 1227. [¶ 30.] Moreover, what we said in Ballard is applicable here: This case p 293, 1296 (N.D.Ga.2008) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wilkenson, 118 Ohio Misc.2d 10, 769
holding no fourth amendment violation when police initiated a canine sniff of a trailer attached to a pickup truck that was parked and unattended on a public street holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding dog sniff of a vehicle parked on a public street did not violate the fourth amendment when canine sniff was conducted after the driver was validly stopped and arrested for driving on a suspended license holding canine sniff of commercial truck parked at weigh station during a routine safety inspection was not a violation of 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