1003, 1007 (10th Cir.1977); State v. Quatsling, 24 Ariz.App. 105, 536 P.2d 226, 228 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S..945, 96 S.Ct. 1416, 47 L.Ed.2d 352 (1976); People v. Wieser, 796 P.2d 982, 985 (Colo.1990); State v. Slowikowski, 307 Or. 19, 761 P.2d 1315, 1320 (1988); Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74, 78 (1987); Strout v. State, 688 S.W.2d 188, 191 (Tex.Ct.App.1985); see also McGahari v. State, 807 P.2d 506, 509-11 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (recognizing the trend in federal courts to find that dog sniffs are not searches, but resolving the question solely under state constitution); Smith v. State, No. 01-02-00503-CR, 2004 WL 213395, at *3-⅜4 (Tex. Ct.App. Feb. 5, 2004), rev. denied (Tex. Sept. 15, 2004) and cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1726, 161 L.Ed.2d 602 (2005) (<HOLDING>). 6 . "The right of the people to be secure in
holding that a dog sniff of an apartment door from a common area is a permissible nonsearch under the fourth amendment holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that a dog sniff outside the defendants door in his apartment building was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment so long as the police were lawfully present in the hallway when the search occurred