made about [the suspect] occurred before he told her she was free to go and no new suspicious information arose before he decided to detain her further.” Id. Ultimately, we held that a brief detention to conduct a dog sniff was impermissible because “[o]nce officers tell traffic violators they are free to leave with a citation or a warning, the Fourth Amendment intercedes to limit a further detention.” Id. ¶ 17, 617 N.W.2d at 842 (citing United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 648 (8th Cir.1999)). [¶ 31.] We hold that the circuit court erred in denying Haar’s motion to suppress. [¶ 32.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER, MEIERHENRY, and SEVERSON, Justices, participating. 1 . Indeed, although inconsistent with Conclusion of Law ¶ 5, the c thCir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Willoughby v. State, 76 Ark.App. 329, 65
holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding canine sniff of an unattended vehicle parked outside the curtilage of defendants home was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding no fourth amendment violation when police initiated a canine sniff of a trailer attached to a pickup truck that was parked and unattended on a public street