v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632, 638 (9th Cir.1993) (reasoning that Thomas conflicts with Supreme Court authority and “rests on an incorrect statement of law”); United States v. Colyer, 878 F.2d 469, 474-76 (D.C.Cir.1989) (determining that the appellant’s reliance on the Thomas decision was unavailing and noting that the case’s correctness has been “called into question”); United States v. Hogan, 122 F.Supp.2d 358, 369 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (following Thomas, but commenting that the case “appears to be at odds with Place and Jacobsen ”); United States v. Sklar, 721 F.Supp. 7, 14 (D.Mass.1989) (observing that a “dwelling-like” expectation of privacy “is not justified when it is asserted with respect to contraband”); People v. Dunn, 77 N.Y.2d 19, 563 N.Y.S.2d 388, 564 N.E.2d 1054, 1056-57 (1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Smith, 327 Or. 366, 963 P.2d 642,
holding canine sniff of an unattended vehicle parked outside the curtilage of defendants home was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment