(requiring red taillight). Thus, there is no question that Hayes was entitled to conduct an investigation reasonably related in scope to the traffic violation, including the request for a driver’s license, registration proof of insurance and even a computer check for outstanding warrants. Id. ¶ 15, 604 N.W.2d at 471. This investigative detention, however, should “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop,” unless the officer has reasonable hirt, odd attire for a hot July evening. Kenyon and his passenger acted exceptionally nervous given the minor nature of the violation. They were sweating, had constricted pupils and slurred speech, all of which are physical symptoms of stimulant use. See, e.g., United States v. Lebrun, 261 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hanson, 1999 SD 9, ¶ 14, 588 N.W.2d
holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that an identical or nearly identical limitation of liability clause was valid and enforceable under georgia law holding identical symptoms justified search recognizing that a protective search of a residence may be justified when the defendant is arrested outside of the home holding same under virtually identical circumstances