a test designed only to detect the presence of that substance did not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). Because the test did not reveal information that actually compromised any legitimate interest in privacy, the court concluded that the testing was not a search. Id. at 124, 104 S.Ct. 1652. Most recently in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that the dog sniff of a car is not a search. Most courts around the nation, both state and federal, have similarly. held that the use of trained dogs to sniff for illegal drugs is not a search. See State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 950 P.2d 722, 725 (1997) 611 (1991) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328, 385 (Iowa
holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that an officer does not need reasonable articulable suspicion of drugrelated criminal activity prior to subjecting defendants car to a dog sniff subsequent to a lawful traffic stop holding that a dog sniff of the outside of a car subsequent to a valid traffic stop did not constitute a search holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest holding that a dog sniff of a federal express package was a search