canine "sniff." The district court denied Roberts' claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence on this ground because it concluded that the drug dog's sniff did not constitute a search. We agree. Roberts' luggage was sniffed in a public place, which does not "constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment" because the intrusion is minimal and does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983); United States v. Beale, 736 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1984); cf Florida v. Jardines, U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417 (2013) (distinguishing dogs' sniffs in public places from those within the curtilage of one's home). Because the Fourth Amendment was not implicated, see Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468-69 (1985), police officers required no suspicion before allowing the dog to sniff his luggage. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying Roberts' claim, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Douglas Saitta

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Sally S. deSoto Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

sr: :"4:04-Sit