OH4: Dog alert here conflated into RS question

Defendant was stopped for following too close and the state trooper found that she had a territorially limited DL, and she was outside the territory. He remembered her from a prior drug investigation and called for a drug dog. The court of appeals includes the dog alert in the finding of reasonable suspicion, but that’s wrong because reasonable suspicion had to exist before calling for the drug dog. State v. Gurley, 2015-Ohio-5361, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 5174 (4th Dist. Dec. 17, 2015)*:

[*P28] Given Trooper Lewis’s discovery of Gurley’s limited driving privileges, his recollection of the facts of his earlier stop with Gurley, and the drug dog’s alert on Gurley’s vehicle, we find that he possessed reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the stop. We do not find that the dog sniff prolonged the stop. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), paragraph one of the syllabus (“Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable searches.”) The dog completed a sniff of the car and alerted to the presence of drugs five minutes into the stop. Trooper Lewis testified that it takes him about 10 to 12 minutes to issue a citation during a normal traffic stop. Additionally, once the dog alerted to the presence of drugs, Trooper Lewis had probable cause to search Gurley’s vehicle. Eatmon, 2013-Ohio-4812 at ¶ 17. (Quotations omitted.) (“When a drug dog alerts to the presence of drugs, it gives law enforcement probable cause to search the entire vehicle.”) Accordingly, we find the duration of the traffic stop was not unlawful. Gurley’s second assignment of error is overruled.

The license restriction alone would justify a ticket, so what about the past drug investigation? RS or not? So the question is whether the dog arrived promptly before the ticket could be written. This is too thin for me, and the question really close. I think it’s wrong.