conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.'" Id., ¶ 33 (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 918 (1984)). The exception encompasses situations in which "police officers act in objectively reasonable reliance upon [a search] warrant, which ha[s] been issued by a detached and neutral magistrate." State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶ 74, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. "[T]he burden is upon the State to show that the process used in obtaining the search warrant included a significant investigation and a review by either a police officer trained and knowledgeable in the requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, or a knowledgeable government attorney." Id. ¶ 16. The search warrant in this case was signed by a Milwaukee County Court Commissioner, and t 1007 (Md. 2004) (<HOLDING>); Porter v. State of Texas, 93 S.W.3d 342,
holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search 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 a dog sniff of an apartment door from a common area is a permissible nonsearch under the fourth amendment holding that a dog sniff of the area outside the door of a hotel room is not a search under the fourth amendment or the texas constitution because the dogs sniff does not explore the details of the hotel room and the sniff reveals nothing about the room other than the presence of cocaine in which there is no legitimate privacy interest