please the court and the question presented in this case is whether considering all of the facts known to the officers at the time of the traffic stop is a great track objective did they have how to search the truck can i ask about those are all good that summarizes the issues in the case and the older this is not by the manner court but it was interesting to read the martinez decision where they pointed amendment announces under federal law because remember since ran the suppression issue over in federal court we know from our we know from the cases we said in our brief that once you come into federal court and you're analyzing th amendment reasonableness state l believe at the time to stop that they were operating under a new address that did they have to do they have to have that belief that they were operating under federal law no they they did not  carcase fren subjectivity whatever the officers believed at the time whatever they were thinking or maybe saying it was captured on i think as that's all irrelevant probable cause is a purely objective analysis and so there was a probable cause to prolong the stop so that his paper for speeding is stopped for speeding the officer apparently believes that he doesn't have probable cause just based on the smell or at least he's there while another officer comes to say or did you do that in a normal you have to have for there reasonable suspicion for any prohibition of a stop so at the beginning it was initiated by a speeding stop and he started to do that take it now there is evidence in the record that some of that delayed thirty minutes was because he was working on completing this speeding paperwork and then part of the other delay was to allow enough time for the other officer chemist as ten because he wanted some remember that this stop took place at nine pm so if he's saying morning we're talking at least one hour or so the officer speaking this is what i smell he's saying roughly nine hours ago that doesn't jive and then separately the moments later he he called it six to seven hours so even then what the officer is saying is these type rhymes are only add up and it's not as it only out just from being all this in there at the door of the truck and have a particular smell that he thinks is more recent than something the nd officer and officers there when he called officers there it took them thirty minutes to show up it officers there at the time of the initial phone call to tell o exception and then of course the administrative regulations that apply to just truck drivers that's a separate analysis so all of that is mentioned on that initial and how those is all federal regulations that are applicable there or is or  counsel can you can you clarify why that is because the district court did provide an analysis of federal law it is a really depend i mean does it depend on whether th was driving after he while he was in marijuana which is a violation of law and it lives in the valley so why wouldn't that be enough for the officers to continue asking questions assessed me are able to assess i language and that credibility we're talking about what happened here is there was a cold record in the sense of camera footage and said we have the troopers who were there with the driver and passenger at the time and they were the ones who were able to assess things like demeanor and body language and so that same deference doesn't apply here because this court has the body camera in front of it so there's no special deference to say it is your car can walk some particular way that this current can so i don't think that same credibility deference applies here as to the argument that even though we have reasonable suspicion suspicion to promise stuff that it never turned into a probable cause i just want to briefly summarize what facts were before the officers and i emphasize that is just a fair probability to believe that they were going to find marijuana in this truck so gross yes on the truck moving and it was eating he pulled it over he immediately sell marijuana watching out of the truck immediately admitted to possessing it smoking marijuana he didn't even  try to deny that he wasn't using drugs and again he made those inconsistent time frames that we already talked about so it was reasonable for the officers to disbelieve him not only because of how he was acting in that moment but also testified about how it's very common for somebody who's using drugs or alcohol while driving minimize what's going on how long ago it was how much it was so that all that are into a situation here so under the bar of probable cause which the supreme court  has repeatedly stated as a low bar this is more than enough and then finally just the last point that the district court on the search was beyond the scope we talked all about in our brief why this search was reasonable is either reasonable under the th amendment or it's not we were talking about the entire