We are not sure what the government means by “sufficient connection,” but if it is less than probable cause, it is not sufficient. If Rodriguez reasonably suspected Montes-Ramos was transporting illegal narcotics, he could have detained Montes Ramos and investigated further. He could have asked if Montes-Ramos was transporting narcotics. See United States v. Karam, 496 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). He could have asked for consent to search the vehicle. See United States v. Sanchez, 89 F.3d 715, 719 (10th Cir.1996). He could have stood at the car door, waiting for the smell of marijuana to waft out the window. See Angelos, 433 F.3d at 748. He could have called for a drug dog to sniff the exterior of the vehicle. See United States v. Morales-Zamora, 914 F.2d 200, 203 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). And if his suspicion about drug trafficking
holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment holding canine sniff of an unattended vehicle parked outside the curtilage of defendants home was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment