Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)). 3 . Because the search was without a warrant, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the search was lawful. See United States v. Johnson, 936 F.2d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam). Thus, if the government were relying on some notion of plain sight, it would be required to produce evidence that the gym bag was open. It did not do so. Nor could it satisfy its burden premised on Smith’s consent, since, as we explain below, that consent could not extend to the bag. Moreover, even if the bag had been open, the fact that it was stored under the bed, thus requiring the police to move it, would have required probable cause, since such movement would constitute a search. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324-25, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the condition of the bag was 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an officers movement of stereo components to examine their serial numbers was a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment (B) 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 (C) holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment (D) holding an officers movement of stereo equipment to view a serial number constituted a search under the fourth amendment (E) holding that the warrantless search of knights supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment
Output (English): 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