to any authority that holds that the officers had the affirmative duty to close the windows in preparation for the dog sniff, and we find none. Instead, appellants rely on United States v. Winningham, 140 F.3d 1328, 1329-30 (10th Cir.1998), where the Tenth Circuit held a search illegal where officers opened the door of a suspect’s van, took the dog off its leash near the open door, and allowed the dog to jump into the van through the open door “and methodically sniff[] the van’s interior.” Drawing on previous Tenth Circuit precedent, Win-ningham held that an officer may not open a vehicle to “creat[e] the opportunity” for a drug dog to go where the officer himself cannot go, although a suspect may. Id. at 1330-31 & n. 2; See United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359, 361-64 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Winningham does not help appellants here, as
holding that search was proper where a drug dog jumped into the open trunk of a car and keyed on a duffel bag after the suspect opened the trunk holding that guns located in trunk of car were carried under statute holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not holding that an officer had probable cause to search bags in the trunk of the car when he opened the trunk and smelled a strong odor of methamphetamine holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money