With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by an unreasonable delay in his detention by the police. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 . See also Smith v. State, No. 03-06-00085-CR, 2007 WL 700834, at *3-4 (Tex.App.-Austin Mar. 7, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 . At one point Jordan testified separately about spending ten to fifteen minutes questioning Bullock and several minutes administering the test, but at another time Jordan testified that his investigation took between ten and fifteen minutes from the time he got Bullock out of the vehicle, which would include the "few minutes” Jordan spent administering the HGN. 3 . See also Wilson v. State, No. 05-08-00802-CR, 2009 WL 4756562, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas Dec. 14, 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Smith, 2007 WL 700834, at *3-4 (holding that

A: holding approximately twentyminute delay in dwi investigation primarily to await arrival of dwi enforcement officer was reasonable because delay furthered reasonable law enforcement purposes
B: holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer even though officer who initiated the stop was qualified to perform dwi investigation was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer brought greater expertise to scene and could complete dwi investigation more rapidly
C: holding delay of thirty to thirtyfive minutes waiting for state police to conduct dwi investigation during which time some investigation by local officer occurred did not violate fourth amendment
D: holding that legitimate law enforcement interests were served by local police officers delay while waiting for state police officer to arrive to conduct dwi investigation because state officers had more dwi experience and local officers needed to be available to respond to emergencies
D.