Dog sniffs of the exterior of a vehicle are not searches under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d 505, 511 (8th Cir. 2007). "Such a dog sniff may be the product of an unconstitutional seizure, however, if the traffic stop is unreasonably prolonged before the dog is employed." United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir. 2006), [*6] cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1118 (2007) (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). Such a situation might typically occur when an officer unreasonably lengthens a roadside detention until another officer can bring a drug dog to the scene. . . . Having said that, the dog sniff was nonetheless impermissible if it was the result of an unconstitutionally prolonged traffic stop. See Peralez, 526 F.3d at 1119; Alexander, 448 F.3d at 1016.
United States v. Suitt, No. 08-2688, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13769, at *5–6 (8th Cir. Jun. 25, 2009).
So, if you are stopped at the gate to the base and the MP and dog walk up to your car to sniff, the dog to do the outside, the MP to do the inside, then that should be OK.
But if you are asked to wait, and 30 minutes later the sniffer dog shows up, you have a potential suppression motion. The military hurry up and wait should not be a good enough government argument against suppression.