than that in an automobile and is comparable to that in a home. We agree that the privacy interest in an area outside a fixed structure such as a storage unit is greater than that outside a mobile but temporarily stopped automobile. Unlike an automobile, a storage unit is not subject to substantial governmental regulation and is designed specifically for the purpose of storing personal effects in a fixed place. Compare Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d at 131. In addition, appellant’s privacy interest at the time of the dog sniff was perhaps greater than in Wiegand, where the motorist already had been stopped for lawful reasons. But we conclude that the expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment is less for a storage unit than for a home. See, e.g., State v. Carter, 569 N.W.2d 169 (Minn.1997) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 83, 119
holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that passengers of automobiles that are pulled over by a police officer for a traffic stop are seized under the fourth amendment holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye holding that a police officer who left a sidewalk climbed over bushes and peered through a gap in a homes blinds to observe drugrelated activity performed search under fourth amendment