With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 152 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). Reasonableness is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 63. It requires a balancing of the public interest and the individual’s right to be free from arbitrary detentions and intrusions. Id. A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless it falls within one of the “specifically defined and well-established” exceptions to the warrant requirement. McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1004, 124 S.Ct. 536, 157 L.Ed.2d 410 (2003); see Best, 118 S.W.3d at 862. However, before we reach reasonableness, we must first determine whether a search even occurred. Our sister court has held that a dog sniff of a front door is not a search. See Rodriguez, 106 S.W.3d at 228-29 (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. State, No. 01-02-00503-CR,

A: holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search
B: holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch
C: holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed it was used as a main entrance to the house and it was not protected from observation by passersby
D: holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house
C.