thirty-five minute investigation, Silman questioned Bullock about whether he had consumed alcohol, what kind of alcohol he had consumed, what brand of beer, how many alcoholic drinks he had consumed, how many ounces the drink was, the establishment at which he had consumed alcohol, when he had last consumed food, what he ate at that time, where he ate, what his medical condition was, whether he had ever had a concussion, whether he had any permanent injuries, whether he hat twenty-minute delay while waiting for DWI officer did not violate Fourth Amendment). 6 .See also Wilson, 2009 WL 4756562, at *2; Dickson, 2006 WL 3523789, at *3-4. 7 . See also Lenzy v. State, No. 01-00-00904-CR, 2001 WL 1136713 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 27, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication)
holding that twentysevenminute detention for dwi investigation after traffic stop was not unreasonable holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer even though officer who initiated the stop was qualified to perform dwi investigation was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer brought greater expertise to scene and could complete dwi investigation more rapidly holding that a detention was not unreasonable where officers though slowed down were diligent in their investigation holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer was more experienced and could complete dwi investigation faster holding that police may briefly detain individuals for further investigation during a traffic stop as long as they can establish the reasonableness of the detention