Defendant preserved her Fourth Amendment claim by citing it in the motion and by arguing at the hearing the stop was impermissibly extended. “Although the question is close, we agree with defendant that her Fourth Amendment argument is adequately preserved for appeal because she alerted the trial court and the state to her contention that the stop was impermissibly extended when McGriff stopped processing the citation during the dog sniff.” State v. Rosales, 291 Ore. App. 762, 2018 Ore. App. LEXIS 590 (May 16, 2018).

The officer had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop and used the drug dog. “In this case, the following articulable facts gave Officer Wood reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Defendant gave inconsistent, odd answers to Officer Wood’s questions that were atypical of his encounters with the general public when issuing tickets. Defendant gave multiple, inconsistent reasons for the purpose of his trip to Albuquerque from Phoenix, a known drug source city. It was suspicious that Defendant would mention his business, but when asked if he was coming for work, he said he was just driving around, even though Albuquerque is a long way to come from Phoenix to merely drive around. Adding to Officer Wood’s reasonable suspicion was the fact that Defendant gave a new answer for why he was in town — to see a lady, and that he was driving all the way to Albuquerque to meet her, but he did not know where and had to call her. See United States v. Karam, 496 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (10th Cir. 2007) (‘[C]onfusion about details is often an indication that a story is being fabricated on the spot….’). Defendant’s latter story was consistent with drug smugglers who often have to call to meet up with their contacts. It was additionally unusual that Defendant left his credit cards at home for a long out-of-state trip.” United States v. Mercado-Gracia, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84792 (D. N.M. May 21, 2018).*