¶1concurring.
¶2I agree with Judge Edmonds’ dissent that a dog sniff is not a search and that State v. Juarez-Godinez, 135 Or App 591, 604-05, 900 P2d 1044 (1995), affd 326 Or 1 (1997), holding to the contrary, in which I joined, was wrongly *247decided. Because, however, we are at this point bound by our holding that a dog sniff does constitute a search, I agree with the majority that there is no principled basis to make a dog-sniff exception to the probable cause requirement.