Was the drug offense arrest based on the facts of the traffic stop and use of the drug-sniffing dog valid under Rodriguez v. U.S.?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I GIVEN A TRAFFIC STOP MADE BY THE STATE TROOPER, WHO WAS THE “DOG HANDLER” INVOLVED, WAS ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING HIS TICKET WRITING, WHEN HE STOPS DOING SO AFTER JOINED BY OTHERS. HE THEN ORDERS THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND MAKE USE OF HIS DOG WHO THEN ALERTS: CAN THE DRUG OFFENSE ARREST BASED ON THESE FACTS SURVIVE RODRIGUEZ V. U.S., 135 8. CT. 1609 (2015)? I GIVEN THE REMOVAL OF THE MOTORIST AND HIS PASSENGER FROM THEIR VEHICLE (BY A TROOPER) WHO WAS IN THE FINAL PHASES OF WRITING A WARNING TICKET (HERE FOR A WINDOW TINT VIOLATION), WHICH RENDERED THE VEHICLE A LAWFULLY PARKED VEHICLE, BE SEARCHED WITHOUT A WARRANT? Il WHERE THE TROOPER WHO WAS FINALIZING HIS WRITING OF A TICKET (FOR A TINT VIOLATION), IS JOINED BY OTHER TROOPERS, LITERALLY STOPS DOING SO TO ORDER THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE VEHICLE SO HE CAN MAKE USE OF HIS “DOG”: CAN THE USE OF THE DOG BE SAID TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A WARRANTLESS SEARCH, WHICH REQUIRED PROBABLE CAUSE? il IV IF THE TEST IS NOT WHETHER THE TRAFFIC STOP LASTED LONGER THAN THE AVERAGE TRAFFIC STOP, BUT WHETHER IT LASTED LONGER THAN WAS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PURPOSE OF THE STOP, CAN IT BE SAID WITH IMPUNITY, THE TROOPER WAS JUSTIFIED IN INTERRUPTING HIS WRITING OF THE TICKET IN ORDER TO MAKE USE OF HIS DOG, AFTER WHICH THE MOTORISTS WERE REMOVED, THE DOG ALERTED? iii STATEMENT OF