a close question on when ... detention becomes unreasonable. However, we are concerned with the dubious message we send to law enforcement officers and the public if we validate a procedure allowing officers to falsely tell traffic offenders they are free to go, only for the purpose of eliciting their uncoerced agreement to search their automobiles [or in Haar’s case, for the purpose of performing an unconstitutional investigatory detention to conduct a canine sniff]. 2000 SD 134, ¶ 17, 617 N.W.2d at 842. In Ballard, we concluded that a brief detention to conduct a canine sniff “after telling [the suspect] she was free to leave was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.” 2000 SD 134, ¶ 15, 617 N.W.2d at 841. We observed that “[a]ll the observations [the office 453, 456 (2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Carroll, 537 F.Supp.2d 1290,
holding no fourth amendment violation when police initiated a canine sniff of a trailer attached to a pickup truck that was parked and unattended on a public street holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment holding canine sniff of commercial truck parked at weigh station during a routine safety inspection was not a violation of the fourth amendment holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment