and distinguished the situation from intrusions into areas characterized by reduced expectations of privacy. Id. Furthermore, the Court was primarily concerned about the revelation of myriad intimate and private details that a thermal imager, and the prospective use of continually advancing technology, could reveal. Kyllo, 121 S.Ct. at 2045-46. A dog sniff is not a technological advancement that invites the same sort of concern. Indeed, this court has noted that the use of canines for their recognized olfactory abilities has an extensive history dating back to early decisions, and the information a dog can reveal has remained largely unchanged throughout that period. Brooks v. People, 975 P.2d 1105, 1111 n. 6 (Colo.1999); see also State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328, 335 (Iowa 2001) (<HOLDING>). We have expressly held that the use of a
holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that six employees bringing suit under title vii were not in privity with the united states which had brought a previous suit against the same employer because the employees sought a type of relief which the united states had not sought holding that a drugsniffing dog is not technology of the type addressed in kyllo v united states meriting a divergence from the extensive national and federal case law developed regarding vehicle dog sniffs holding that a national banking association chartered by or under the authority of the united states was exempt from the lutpa as a matter of law