his leash go and let him go where his nose would take him.” In these circumstances, we think .the police remained within the range of activities they may permissibly engage in when they have reasonable suspicion to believe an automobile contains narcotics. Stone, 866 F.2d at 364. In Mr. Winning-ham’s case, the officers themselves opened the door, allowing the van to sit on the side of the highway with the sliding door wide open for a period of at least six minutes until the drug dog could arrive. The dog handler then unleashed the dog as the dog neared the open door. A desire to facilitate a dog sniff of the van’s interior, absent in Stone, seems readily apparent here. Second, the officers in Stone acted under reasonable suspicion, a circumstance underscored by our limited holding. Id. (<HOLDING>). In the present case, however, as we discuss
holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the hatch act because the nature of the political activities they intended to engage in was a matter of speculation holding that although the automobile exception is based in part on exigence where police have probable cause to search a ear they need not get a search warrant even if they have the time and opportunity holding in these circumstances we think the police remained within the range of activities they may permissibly engage in when they have reasonable suspicion to believe an automobile contains narcotics emphasis added