to complete that mission, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005), “a traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because the officer asks questions umrelated to the initial purpose for the stop, provided that those questions do not unreasonably extend the amount of time that the subject is delayed.” United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir.2006) (quoting United, States v. Martin, 422 F.3d 597, 601-02 (7th Cir.2005)). Thus “[a]s long as the [deputy’s] questioning did not extend the length of the detention, ... there is no Fourth Amendment issue with respect to the content of the questions.” United States v. Wallace, 429 F.3d 969, 974 (10th Cir.2005); see United States v. Stewart, 473 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) This court’s examination is clear. ... we need
holding that defendant was unreasonably seized under fourth amendment when officer detained him to ask questions unrelated in scope to the reasons that justified the initial traffic stop holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction holding the correct fourth amendment inquiry assuming the detention is legitimate is whether the questions extended the time that a driver was detained regardless of the questions content holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred