With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". also had drugs and if Defendant would consent to a search. See Haywood, 124 N.M. 661, 954 P.2d 93, 1998-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (explaining that the purpose of an investigative stop can be expanded by specific, articulable facts that cause an officer to reasonably suspect criminal activity). {11} As to Officer Owen’s detention of Defendant, the time between the completion of the HGN test and Officer Owen’s inquiry and search was brief. The detention in question lasted no longer than the time it took for Officer Owen to deliberate about the test results before Officer Seifert discovered drugs on the passenger and notified Officer Owen. The brief time period met the requirements of diligence; the stop in its entirety lasted approximately ten minutes. See Werner, 117 N.M. at 319, 871 P.2d at 975 (<HOLDING>). As to Officer Owen’s questions about drugs,

A: holding that no valid arrest had taken place before the search of the defendants person was conducted even though prior to that point a police officer had approached the defendant displayed his badge informed the defendant of his suspicions that the defendants luggage contained drug contraband informed the defendant of his constitutional rights and detained the defendant for twenty minutes after he had accompanied the officers to a police office located in the airport
B: holding that affidavits for search warrants must be interpreted in a commonsense and realistic fashion because they are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation
C: holding investigation was not deficient in part because counsel hired an experienced death penalty investigator who conducted a thorough investigation into defendants history
D: holding that investigation was not conducted with sufficient haste when the defendant was detained for over fortyfive minutes
D.