to the search of the truck, Wilson would have 0th Cir.1989) (similar). Wilson does not assert any such interest in the truck or its contents. Nevertheless, Wilson may, as he does here, “contest the lawfulness of his own detention and seek to suppress evidence found in the vehicle as the fruit of the illegal detention.” United States v. Nava-Ramirez, 210 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2000); uspicion, the further detention must, like the original traffic stop, “be temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the [further detention], and the scope of the [further] detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.” United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 945 (10th Cir.1997). There is no dispute here that Deputy Watkins was justified i .C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, it is undisputed that Deputy
holding that the excluded evidence required a finding of reasonable suspicion holding that reasonable suspicion justified the field sobriety tests where the driver weaved across lanes stumbled out of the vehicle swayed while standing and admitted to drinking three beers holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law holding that reasonable suspicion justified the field sobriety tests because the driver drove erratically had bloodshot and wateiy eyes slurred speech and had trouble exiting the vehicle holding only reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a field sobriety test