152 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). Reasonableness is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 63. It requires a balancing of the public interest and the individual’s right to be free from arbitrary detentions and intrusions. Id. A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless it falls within one of the “specifically defined and well-established” exceptions to the warrant requirement. McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1004, 124 S.Ct. 536, 157 L.Ed.2d 410 (2003); see Best, 118 S.W.3d at 862. However, before we reach reasonableness, we must first determine whether a search even occurred. Our sister court has held that a dog sniff of a front door is not a search. See Rodriguez, 106 S.W.3d at 228-29 (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. State, No. 01-02-00503-CR,
holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed it was used as a main entrance to the house and it was not protected from observation by passersby holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance