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
holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment 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 holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred holding that probable cause to believe the traffic code had been violated rendered the stop reasonable under the fourth amendment regardless of officers subjective intent holding that officers third patdown search of appellant almost thir tyfive minutes into traffic stop violated fourth amendment