the situation did not demand a protracted investigation: the of fícers were dealing with one car and two individuals. And unlike in Sharpe and Owens, the defendants did absolutely nothing to contribute to the delay. They answered the officers’ questions when asked, and they alighted from the car when so ordered. Finally, unlike in Flowers, there was no danger of an immediate threat of harm to another person that would necessitate a particularly long or intrusive search. Candidly, most of the opinions involving time and duration challenges to car stops sustain the actions of the police under various rationale, but there must be limits. One can pretend that the stop is justified as a traffic stop, so long as the car was actually violating the law. One can do what is necessary to lear 4) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kelly, 329 F.3d 624, 629
holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity  as a police officer and not as a citizen holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under  1983 because it violates the fourth amendment holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment holding the act of abandoning his firearm while running from a police officer extinguished his fourth amendment claim holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood