to Anchon-do’s body. [24] Belying largely on its own precedent, the federal Tenth Circuit held that the dog sniffs’ indications of the presence of narcotics were sufficient to give rise to probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants: “A canine alert provides the probable cause necessary for searches and seizures.” Id. at 1045 (citing United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir.1993)). Noting that the dog alerted twice, and expressly applying its precedent in Ludwig, the Tenth Circuit reasoned in Anehondo, “[e]ven if the subsequent fruitless search of the car diminished the probability of contraband being in the car, it increased the chances that whatever the dog had alerted to was on the defendants’ bodies.” Id. at 1045; but cf. Whitehead, 683 S.E.2d at 306 (<HOLDING>). [25] We think the rationale of Kay,
holding that where a qualified drug dog alerts to the presence of contraband in a vehicle officers have probable cause to search the vehicle holding that defendants consent to a search of their luggage was undermined by officers misrepresentation that a drug dog had alerted to their luggage holding search invalid under the fourth amendment when a physicallypresent occupant expressly objected to a search  notwithstanding the consent of a fellow occupant holding that after a drug dog alerted at a vehicle fruitless searches of a car and three occupants did not by process of elimination allow a physical search of a fourth occupant holding that each occupant of a car has a right to challenge the propriety of a traffic stop under the fourth amendment