With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to conclude that criminal activity was afoot, ... but rather the kind of behavior that could reasonably be expected of anyone [traveling on an interstate highway].” 446 U.S. at 572, 100 SCt at 1886, 64 L.Ed.2d 497. Consequently, even giving Swets the benefit of his training and experience, and considering all factors together, he had a mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch,’ ” rather than “specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.” See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 573, 100 S.Ct. at 1887, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (citation omitted). Conclusion [¶ 29.] Considering the observations of Swets as a whole together with his training and experience, the information available to him at the time of the det E.2d 430, 436 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Buchanon involved the same question

A: holding canine sniff of a vehicle validly stopped for a headlight violation was not unreasonable given that the driver was being issued a ticket at the time a second officer arrived on the scene and ran the drug dog around the vehicle
B: holding that for general safety purposes an officer may routinely order the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle because when the vehicle is already stopped the slight additional intrusion associated with being directed to exit the car can only be described as de minimis
C: holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment
D: holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle
A.