context: 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.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 700 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1045, 1047-48
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a two-minute delay beyond the conclusion of a traffic stop, which itself lasted twelve to thirteen minutes, was not unreasonable
citation_a.sentence: 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 that a two-minute delay beyond the conclusion of a traffic stop, which itself lasted twelve to thirteen minutes, was not unreasonable).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 139 Fed.Appx. 720, 723
citation_b.parenthetical: 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
citation_b.sentence: 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 that a two-minute delay beyond the conclusion of a traffic stop, which itself lasted twelve to thirteen minutes, was not unreasonable).