'Plain view is reasonable; using specially-tuned biological or mechanical equipment to conduct a search of my property is not.'
Fine -- then you're now claiming the dog sniff is an _unreasonable_ search. This is quite different from your claim (to which I was responding) that the Court said it wasn't a 'search' at all.
Once again, here's a link to the full text of the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-923
Anyone who still thinks the SCOTUS denied that a dog sniff constitutes a 'search' is invited to post the relevant excerpt.
As for the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the search: you'll have to do more than assert that the 'search' in this case was 'unreasonable'. A search of your property isn't automatically 'unreasonable' just because it was performed with 'specially-tuned mechanical or biological equipment', under this ruling or any other.