With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". investigated further by conducting an open-air canine search of the exterior of the rental car. Therefore, I would hold that appellant’s continued detention did not cross the sometimes fine Fourth Amendment line between law enforcement officers’ possession of articu-lable facts justifying continuation of a traffic stop detention for further investir gation and law enforcement officers’ continuation of a traffic stop detention in a “fishing expedition” effort to obtain articu-lable facts or probable cause. Compare Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245 (recognizing that officers’ continued detention of appellant because he did not look like someone on a business trip was not based on articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); see also Dortch, 199 F.3d at 200-01 (<HOLDING>). I would overrule appellant’s first point and

A: holding that officers third patdown search of appellant almost thir tyfive minutes into traffic stop violated fourth amendment
B: holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred
C: holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment
D: holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment
A.