that “the use of a drug-sniffing dog in the course of a traffic stop does not constitute a search, and therefore does not in itself violate the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Taylor, 596 F.3d 373, 377 (7th Cir. 2010). However, a canine sniff “may impact the determination of whether a search is reasonable if the use of the dog causes a delay.” Id. There is no clear-cut rule for determining a reasonably allowable delay pursuant to a traffic stop. See United States v. Garrett, 139 Fed.Appx. 720, 723 (7th Cir. 2005) (stating that if a dog alerted within five to ten minutes of the initial stop, that would likely be a reasonable amount of time, while fifteen or nineteen might be unreasonable); but see United States v. Richardson, 700 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1045, 1047-48 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Arnold has not presented any facts from which
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 dismissal of indictment was abuse of discretion when delay attributable to the government was twelve months holding that a citation process that lasted around thirty minutes and during which the officer asked the defendant three questions about narcotics and weapons did not exceed the scope of the traffic stop holding that a twominute delay beyond the conclusion of a traffic stop which itself lasted twelve to thirteen minutes was not unreasonable holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes