From the circuit that brought us Rodriguez, a drug dog on the scene within two minutes of a traffic stop and writing a ticket for no DL was reasonable. “Thus, there is no evidence that the dog sniff unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop beyond what was necessary to complete the stop.” Being clocked by radar at 66 in a 65 is reason for a stop. United States v. Fuehrer, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23326 (8th Cir. Dec. 28, 2016):
In this case, Deputy Kearney arrived within two minutes of Deputy Williams initiating the traffic stop. Because Fuehrer did not have a license, Deputy Williams asked Fuehrer to sit in the patrol car while he completed paperwork. Deputy Kearney conducted the dog sniff while Fuehrer was in the patrol car. Deputy Williams completed the tasks related to the traffic stop and wrote Fuehrer a warning after the dog sniff was complete and the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics. Thus, there is no evidence that the dog sniff unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop beyond what was necessary to complete the stop. Fuehrer’s reliance on Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), is misplaced. In Rodriguez, the officer had already issued the driver a warning before conducting the dog-sniff search. Id. at 1613. The Supreme Court held that the search was unlawful because it prolonged the traffic stop at issue in that case. Id. at 1615-16. The facts just set forth distinguish the instant case from Rodriguez.