about is the fact that he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable the first issue can be subdivided into two distinct issues one is the dog entering a vehicle search and sue does it matter whether that was done at the direction of the dogs handling the or the winning him both stand for the idea that yes a dog going into a vehicle for law enforcement purposes a cane is a search and both of those cases turned on the fact that the dog entered the vehicle without the consent of the owners and therefore the evidence that it all smoothly and covered was suppressed because the search was nonconsensual and if the first amendment didn't enter into this question if for many constraints did not apply to the canine unit entering a vehicle like this then consent would be unnecessary and just in the same vein when the united states supreme court discusses exterior free air sniffs the line drawing they do and that brings me to the next question which is does it matter whether the dog did on its own or it was directed to by a handler and i would suggest the answer is no and the crucial point there is again a physical injury in this case is still  search but it's important to note that these are not household pets these are not classic these or are well trained and dangerous animals and they are treated like law enfor that their past is some showing that the area in brawl has an expectation of privacy that's right so whatever the incident defendant offer to show whose for the intrusions in our sensory equipment and to go along with that there are some public policy concerns with respect to this idea that law enforcement in this claim responsibility for what these animals  and the first is that having these dogs do things on their own sort of of their own volition has the risk to unnecessarily escalate things and i would say imagine mr boyd was still in the vehicle when this dog jumps in the car and now he's in a confined space with a large well trained or ostensibly well trained dangerous german shepherd the other concern is that it would allow law enforcement to intentionally or not doing in run around the fourth amendment because they're saying this dog can go places we cannot go but we can still leave the benefits of what it fi yes i would say that's it that's a accurate summary but he was asked to produce some sort of documents so him reaching for the console isn't it by itself any sort of suspicious was no evidence it needed a trial of any statements he made about the cocaine so all the state had was he was in a vehicle with cocaine somewhere in the vehicle and the vehicle did not i believe so but that still runs into the same issue your honor it just happened to be in the car in a car that doesn't belong to him and there's really no link from him to those as mark not believe that the state can can forfeit on this issue i'd be with defense counsel but this court can look at that issue independently that it was not dependents initial burden to prove that the fourth amendment applied and u standard based on what he argues is and clyde factual finding by the trial court that he had this version of an expectation of privacy on first it's unclear what credibility finding the defendant is referring to in that he didn't  thermal imaging device on the police and coyote made a conscious pollution all decision to deploy that tool to enter a protected space to search of protected space here the trial court made a specific factual finding that police made no such decision with regard to that districts but they are consistent across the board and they go back to nine hundred eighty nine and in the nearly three decades of precedent this caused by the state there's no sign that the law enforcement officers in any of the by federal circuit to quote was in fact true hearing but it shows only that he used this nickname happened to use this nickname not that he actually was the cocaine dealer being investigated by the i'm southern illinois enforcement group but the question is still something that we as a society are prepared to recognize as an acceptable role if the door was closed and they went through the window i think back on my understanding but here the door was open consensual have it in a word that it smelled something and then when in the water began when it figured out exactly where it was and then that touches on what opposing counsel said about cryo and that that was a deliberate decision and  would be exactly the same but they still looked in the place that they want to allow to look and that would still be a limit violation to the fact that i think those cases are not accurately cited because they don't use this question is this something we're prepared to recognize as a society that we should have an expectation of privacy with interesting is selling cocaine and all it is is an anonymous tip better than really have any weight on whether or not mr benoit was actually selling cocaine and as to the nervousness aspect it wasn't just a traffic stop is the fact that he had just been pulled over he didn't have a license and he was about to be arrested for driving license and i think the  obstructing justice because he had lied about what his name's there's plenty of reason for him to be nervous to begin with whether or not the cocaine was his and lastly i want to just touch on the inevitable discovery issue