116 S.Ct. at 1772, 135 L. Ed.2d at 95-96. “The foremost method of enforcing traffic and vehicle safety regulations ... is acting upon observed violations.” Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 659, 99 S.Ct. at 1399, 59 L.Ed.2d at 671. Of course, the reasonableness of the detention is not limited to investigating the circumstances of the traffic stop. If, during the course of the stop or as a result of the reasonable inquiries initiated by the officer, the circumstances “give rise to suspicions unrelated to the traffic offense, an officer may broaden [the] inquiry and satisfy those suspicions.” United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir.) (quoting Barahona, supra, 990 F.2d at 416), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 936, 116 S.Ct. 348, 133 L.Ed.2d 245 (1995); see Ramos, supra, 42 F.3d at 1163 (<HOLDING>); United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 460 (8th
holding warrantless entry of residence was justified by need to search for intruders or injured occupants holding that an officers belief that he had observed the occupants of a truck participate in a drug transaction supported a valid investigatory detention of the truck and its occupants holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant holding that it is permissible for an officer to order the occupants out of a vehicle during a lawful stop holding that inconsistent answers by occupants or problems with the occupants licenses or registration of the vehicle provide grounds for broadening the inquiry