subjecting luggage to a sniff test by a trained narcotics dog was not a search. Id. at 1291-92. We reasoned that such an investigative technique did not infringe any legitimate privacy interests because “(1) it discloses only the presence or absence of a contraband item, and (2) its use ‘ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods.’ ” Id., quoting Place, 462 U.S. at 707, 103 S.Ct. at 2644. Morgan argues that while Place and Beale may justify the warrantless canine sniff of luggage, they should not be extended. We have already decided, however, that Beale is not limited to a search of luggage. See United States v. Dicesare, 765 F.2d 890, 897 (9th Cir.) (Dicesare) (<HOLDING>), amended, 777 F.2d 543 (9th Cir.1985).
holding that sniff test of automobile trunk not a search requiring probable cause holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not holding that an officer had probable cause to search bags in the trunk of the car when he opened the trunk and smelled a strong odor of methamphetamine holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment