Bloomfield, 40 F.3d at 917. In the instant, Trooper Brehm called for the nearest available drug dog immediately after she developed a reasonable suspicion of narcotics possession and was denied permission to search. The nearest dog was assigned to Sgt. Duis, who was not yet on duty when he got the call. Sgt. Duis arrived thirty-one minutes after Trooper Brehm gave Lyons the warning ticket, and twenty-five minutes after Brehm requested the K-9 unit. There is no evidence that Trooper Brehm or Sgt. Duis were dilatory in their investigation or that there was any unnecessary delay. The officers acted diligently in pursuit of their investigation, and the thirty-one minute wait was not excessive under the circumstances. See United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 951, 954 (8th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 460 (8th
holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding that an officer does not need reasonable articulable suspicion of drugrelated criminal activity prior to subjecting defendants car to a dog sniff subsequent to a lawful traffic stop holding that a fiftynine minute detention to wait for a drug dog was reasonable where the officer requested the dog immediately after developing reasonable suspicion holding ninety minute detention of luggage awaiting arrival of trained narcotics dog unconstitutional holding district courts finding of consent was not clearly erroneous when the defendant consented after officers told him they could get a drug dog even though the defendant knew the dog would alert