long enough for the police to ask questions about the reasons for speeding and to conduct a variety of checks about licenses, registration, insurance and so on. We underline that the police are not constitutionally required to move at top speed or as fast as possible. For the police to be vigilant about crimes is, at least broadly speaking, a good thing. And at a traffic stop, the police can occasionally pause for a moment to take a breath, to think about what they have seen and heard, and to ask a question or so. The police are authorized to detain traffic violators for a reasonable amount of time. United States v. Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206, 1212 n. 7 (11th Cir.2005) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) (<HOLDING>). This analysis applies with particular force
holding that a detention was not unreasonable where officers though slowed down were diligent in their investigation holding that twentysevenminute detention for dwi investigation after traffic stop was not unreasonable holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open holding warrant check not unreasonable where detention not extended solely for that purpose