With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". they reasonably believed Lambeth could have been committing, after the troopers had obtained all the information they needed to write Lam-beth citations, and after Trooper Wilson had called for a canine unit — the stop should have already been concluded and citations should have already been issued. Because Lambeth’s detention should have ended prior to the point in time when Trooper Hatfield said that he smelled marijuana on Lambeth, this fact cannot retroactively justify Lambeth’s unauthorized, continued detention. See Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 244-45; $217,590.00 In U.S. Currency, 54 S.W.3d at 924 (explaining that traffic stop will not justify continued detention to await the arrival of a drug detection dog). Cf. Coleman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 708, 719 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2005, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 502, 166

A: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
B: holding admissible police officers testimony that firearms are commonly used in drug trafficking
C: holding officers articulated reasonable suspicion justified appellants contin ued detention to await canine unit when officer suspected appellant of drug trafficking based on appellants prior arrests for drug offenses appellants lie about his prior criminal history and appellants possession of small jewelers bags used in cocaine trafficking
D: holding that appellants privacy interests under the us and texas constitutions were not invaded when officer walked up appellants driveway to allow drug dog to sniff appellants garage door
C.