the State of Texas v. Brandon Nicholas Martinez, 11-20-00144-CR

Officer Roberto Rodriguez stopped Brandon Martinez for failing to signal before turning into a second gas station; Rodriguez recognized Martinez from a prior marijuana arrest.
Martinez parked with the fuel cap facing away from pump, immediately exited the vehicle, and was talkative about his prior arrest; dispatch later reported the vehicle was registered to another person.
Martinez initially consented to searches of his person and the vehicle but quickly withdrew consent after Rodriguez opened the driver’s door; Martinez also predicted a canine would be summoned if he rolled down a window.
Rodriguez requested a canine unit roughly 10–11 minutes after initiating the stop; the nearest unit (in Early) arrived 38 minutes later, the dog alerted in under a minute, and officers found THC in the vehicle.
The trial court granted Martinez’s motion to suppress, concluding no separate articulable facts supported reasonable suspicion and that the wait for the canine was per se unreasonable; the State appealed.
The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the cumulative facts supported reasonable suspicion and that a 38‑minute wait was not per se unreasonable under the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there were specific, articulable facts (beyond the traffic violation) supporting reasonable suspicion/probable cause and whether the detention was unduly prolonged	Officer Rodriguez articulated multiple facts (prior narcotics arrest, vehicle registered to another, unusual immediate exit, withdrawal of consent, prediction of canine, change in demeanor) that cumulatively gave reasonable suspicion; the traffic investigation itself lasted ~6–7 minutes and subsequent detention was justified	No separate articulable facts independent of the traffic stop; detention was prolonged beyond the scope of the traffic investigation	Reversed trial court: cumulative facts gave reasonable suspicion to expand the investigation; continued detention was justified and not unduly prolonged
Whether the trial court erred by treating a 38‑minute wait for a canine as a per se unreasonable detention (and by addressing an issue raised late)	A 38‑minute wait is not per se unreasonable; no bright‑line rule exists, officer promptly requested the canine and diligently pursued a minimally intrusive sniff; rural resource constraints can justify waits	A 38‑minute delay is an unreasonable extension of the stop; trial court properly suppressed based on the delay	Reversed trial court: 38‑minute delay not per se unreasonable given reasonable suspicion and the circumstances; trial court erred in applying a per se time limit

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative‑stop standard for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (no bright‑line time limit; reasonableness governs detention duration)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (extending a traffic stop for a canine sniff requires reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff of vehicle exterior is not a Fourth Amendment search when the stop is lawful)
Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Texas law on permissible scope and duration of traffic stops)
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (deference to trial court on historical facts/credibility)
State v. Weaver, 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (positive canine alert can establish probable cause)