he believed that the confidential informant was reliable because he had provided reliable information to police officers in the past, resulting in at least five arrests and two felony convictions. Furthermore, Officer Wiesmueller had been able to verify the confidential informant's tips regarding both the vehicle Scull drove and his home address. ¶ 19. Officer Wiesmueller also detailed for the court commissioner the credentials of both Detective Edersinghe and Voden, and the requirements they had met to designate them as a Police Narcotic Detection Team. Officer Wiesmueller told the court commissioner that Voden had alerted to the presence of controlled substances over 200 times, and in each alert, police had either recovered drugs or a drug nexus. ¶ 20. In 52, 1162-63 (WD. Tex. 1997) (<HOLDING>); People v. Jones, 755 N.W.2d 224, 229 (Mich.
holding that a dog sniff search of a safe taken by a burglar from the defendants home was a search holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that dog sniff of dryer vent of house was not a search holding that a dog sniff around the perimeter of the defendants home and alert near a dryer vent was not a fourth amendment search holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment