courts must determine whether a defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); People v. Oates, 698 P.2d 811, 814 (Colo.1985). In 1983, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the odors emanating from his luggage and that, therefore, a dog sniff of that luggage was not a search. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). While th olding that a dog sniff of a vehicle's exterior surfaces did not constitute a search); Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554, 774 A.2d 420, 487 (2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. England, 19 S.W.3d 762, 766
holding that the airspace around the car is not a protected area and police do not need a reasonable suspicion of drugrelated activity prior to subjecting an otherwise lawfully detained vehicle to a canine sniff 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 canine sniff of an automobile need not be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity 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 traffic stop which lasted 105 minutes from the time of the initial stop until the defendant was arrested on drugrelated charges was unreasonable because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for purposes of conducting a drug dog sniff because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was engaged in drugrelated activity