Which of the following answers correctly states the holding of the Court in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), Group of answer choices The initially lawful traffic stop of Caballes became unlawful because without reasonable suspicion of narcotic activity, the use of the canine officer unduly lengthened the traffic stop. The initially lawful traffic stop of Caballes became unlawful, the use of the canine officer, without reasonable suspicion of narcotic activity, violated Cabballes' 4th Amendment rights The use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog that did not expose non-contraband items, during a brief and lawful traffic stop, does not implicate legitimate interests of privacy, and therefore, does not trigger 4th Amendment protection. The use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog during a brief and lawful traffic stop, does not implicate legitimate interests of privacy, and therefore, does not trigger 4th Amendment protection, irrespective of whether use of the canine officer exposed lawful as well as unlawful activity