2001, pet. ref’d). 13 . Mohmed, 977 S.W.2d at 628. 14 . Smith v. State, 840 S.W.2d 689, 692 639 (both holding that officers may check for outstanding warrants during a traffic stop). 26 . We decline appellant's invitation to review the credibility of Trooper Hatfield’s detection of the marijuana odor de novo. Although the trial court did not make express findings of fact, we will assume that the trial court found that Trooper Hatfield smelled marijuana on appellant because that finding supports the court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion to suppress and it is supported by the record. See Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 328. As a finding of historical fact, we give it almost total deference. See Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 652-53; Best, 118 S.W.3d at 861-62. 27 .See Coleman, 188 S.W.3d at 719 (<HOLDING>). 28 . Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 331; Reasor v.
holding that a traffic stop which lasted 105 minutes from the time of the initial stop until the defendant was arrested on drugrelated charges was unreasonable because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for purposes of conducting a drug dog sniff because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was engaged in drugrelated activity holding that although the investigation of the traffic offense that served as the basis for the stop was complete when the officer issued the citation the officers continued detention of the appellant thereafter for a canine search was lawful because during the investigation of the traffic offense the officer had developed a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed a drugrelated offense holding that the constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop did not depend on the actual motivation of the officer involved as long as the officer articulated a lawful reason for the stop holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that if an officer possesses an objectively reasonable suspicion that a traffic offense has been committed the officer may request identifying information from the driver