With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". do not convert the encounter into an unlawful seizure, so long as those inquires do not measurably extend the duration of the stop. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 100-01, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005); see also State v. Taylor, No. E2010-01817-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 2120087, at *8-9 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 20, 2011) (discussing Muehler and determining that officer’s actions in asking the defendant questions unrelated to the traffic stop had not "unreasonably exceeded the scope of the traffic stop”). 8 . See, e.g., Taylor, 2011 WL 2120087, at *9-10 (finding that a stop, in which the defendant was asked several questions, asked to get out of the car, and which lasted around eighteen minutes, had not "unreasonably exceeded the scope of the traffic stop”); McConaughy, 2010 WL 681361, at *7 (<HOLDING>); State v. Fernandez, No.

A: 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
B: holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes
C: holding that a citation process that lasted around thirty minutes and during which the officer asked the defendant three questions about narcotics and weapons did not exceed the scope of the traffic stop
D: holding that a traffic stop which lasted 105 minutes from the time of the initial stop until the defendant was arrested on drugrelated charges was unreasonable because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for purposes of conducting a drug dog sniff because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was engaged in drugrelated activity
C.