Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the Tenth Circuit held that an unlawful search took place when officers felt the sides of luggage in the overhead racks of a bus without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent. See Nicholson, 144 F.3d at 638-39. While it acknowledged that luggage placed in the overhead racks of a commercial bus was subject to some intrusions, the court emphasized that “[t]he degree of intrusion is the determining factor as to whether an officer’s contact with the exterior of luggage constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 639. The court found that the officer’s manipulation went beyond the degree of intrusion that a passenger would reasonably expect his bag to encounter from other passengers. See id. But see United States v. Bond, 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), petition, for cert, filed, No. 98-9349 (U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search (B) holding that feel ing and squeezing exterior of luggage in overhead compartment of bus is not a search under the fourth amendment (C) recognizing that permissive search of car compartment incident to arrest is based on the fact that compartment is within reach of the arrestee (D) holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment (E) holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not
Output (English): holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment