continue the investigation. In Place and Ortega the police conducted dog sniff searches of luggage at an airport and on a Greyhound bus traveling interstate, respectively. We stated in Ortega that "the officers' actions in no way delayed the departure of Defendant's bus." See Ortega, 34 P.3d at 993, 2001 Colo. LEXIS at *21. Based upon our precedent under the Colorado Constitution, we conclude that a dog sniff search of a person's automobile in connection with a traffic stop that is prolonged beyond its purpose to conduct a drug investigation intrudes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy and constitutes a search and seizure requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Our holding here accords with cases we decided after Place. See People v. May, 886 P2d 280, 282 (Colo.1994)(<HOLDING>); People v. Boylam, 854 P.2d 807, 812
holding that a dog sniff of an express mail package was a search holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that a dog sniff search of a safe taken by a burglar from the defendants home was a search holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest holding that dog sniff of dryer vent of house was not a search