dent analysis of Article 1, Section'll results in waiver of the issue on appeal), trans. denied (2014). 4 . For a detailed summary of previous "Indiana dog sniff cases" that we believe' remain consistent with Rodriguez, see State v. Gray, 997 N.E.2d 1147, 1151 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citing Bush v. State, 925 N.E.2d 787 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), clarified on reh’g, 929 N.E.2d 897, trans. denied (2014)). 5 . While we need not reach the issue, we conclude that even if the dóg sniff prolonged Hansbrough’s traffic stop, the evidence establishes that Officer Silbaugh had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (based upon his observation of what he believed to be marijua na shake) in order to detain Hansbrough beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of the stop. See Gray, 997 N.E.2d at 1152
holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest recognizing that once a justifiable stop is made the scope of the officers investigation may be broadened beyond the purpose for which the person was stopped only if additional particularized and objective suspicions come to light although additional suspicion is not required tpperform a dog sniff suspicion is required for any additional seizure that the dog sniff caused holding dog sniff of a vehicle parked on a public street did not violate the fourth amendment when canine sniff was conducted after the driver was validly stopped and arrested for driving on a suspended license holding that a dog sniff of a federal express package was a search holding that a dog sniff of the outside of a car subsequent to a valid traffic stop did not constitute a search