Mr. Vera's real complaint is that the officer who just so happened to be travelling with a drug-sniffing dog just so happened to stop him for "illegally tinted windows" as an excuse to search for drugs. But unfortunately for Mr. Vera, the Supreme Court has allowed pretextual stops, so that argument doesn't work.
So Mr. Vera's attorney makes the argument that at least legally works -- that getting the drug-sniffing dog out of the car etc. unreasonably prolonged the stop. The problem with this argument, however, isn't the law, but is instead the facts. We're talking 30 or 90 seconds or so. Time during which the other officer's busy writing the ticket. That's not illegally prolonging the stop sufficient to compel the suppression of the evidence.
So those 4.5 kilos of methamphetamine that the dog smelled, and that hence the officers found, is coming in at trial.
Good job refusing consent to search. But bad job having illegally tinted windows that allowed 'em to stop you in the first place.
