Court acknowledged that a person possesses a privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage, it held that a canine sniff is "an investigative procedure that is so limited in both the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure" that it does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Id. The Court specifically noted that a canine sniff is much less intrusive than a typical search because it does not require opening the luggage to reveal information about personal non-contraband items, but rather only discloses the presence or absence of an illegal substance. Id. In a subsequent case, the United States Supreme Court observed that lawmakers have enacted laws against the private possession of cocaine, and th 01) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kalie, 699 So.2d 879, 881 (La.1997)
holding that a canine sniff of an automobile need not be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that an officer does not need reasonable articulable suspicion of drugrelated criminal activity prior to subjecting defendants car to a dog sniff subsequent to a lawful traffic stop holding that the airspace around the car is not a protected area and police do not need a reasonable suspicion of drugrelated activity prior to subjecting an otherwise lawfully detained vehicle to a canine sniff holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment