With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wiesmueller's detailed affidavit is sufficient to demonstrate "that the process used in obtaining the search warrant included a significant investigation." See Eason, 245 Wis. 2d 206, ¶ 74. ¶ 21. Relevant caselaw at the time the search warrant was signed also convinces us that the police acted reasonably in objectively relying on the search warrant in this case. As the State points out, prior to Jardines, dog-sniff searches of the type presented in this case had been held lawful in many jurisdictions. Furthermore, the law was and still is that a dog sniff of the exterior of a car is not a "search" under either the Fourth Amendment or the Wisconsin Constitution. State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, ¶ 14, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748; see also Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408-09 (2005) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 22. In light of the reliability of the

A: holding dog sniff of a vehicle parked on a public street did not violate the fourth amendment when canine sniff was conducted after the driver was validly stopped and arrested for driving on a suspended license
B: holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment
C: holding that a dog sniff of a vehicle during a traffic stop conducted absent reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity did not violate the fourth amendment because it did not implicate any legitimate privacy interest
D: holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest
C.