the Tenth Circuit held that an unlawful search took place when officers felt the sides of luggage in the overhead racks of a bus without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent. See Nicholson, 144 F.3d at 638-39. While it acknowledged that luggage placed in the overhead racks of a commercial bus was subject to some intrusions, the court emphasized that “[t]he degree of intrusion is the determining factor as to whether an officer’s contact with the exterior of luggage constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 639. The court found that the officer’s manipulation went beyond the degree of intrusion that a passenger would reasonably expect his bag to encounter from other passengers. See id. But see United States v. Bond, 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), petition, for cert, filed, No. 98-9349 (U.S.
holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search holding that feel ing and squeezing exterior of luggage in overhead compartment of bus is not a search under the fourth amendment recognizing that permissive search of car compartment incident to arrest is based on the fact that compartment is within reach of the arrestee holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not