suppress for two main reasons the first has to do with the unreasonable prolonging of a traffic stop such that it became an unlawful seizure and the second has to do with an unconstitutional search that took place tell me something i'm confused about twenty minutes is mentioned and forty minutes is mentioned how a couple of times or mention would you quickly in a sentence or two tell us the times that was confusing yes your honor at the traffic stop was initiated approximately twenty minutes after it began the criminal history check on mr sanchez came back i think that's the first mention of twenty minutes so they the trooper metered discover that  the tags works fired on the vehicle the vehicle didn't belong to them and mr sanchez was did not have a driver's license and then it was determined that a criminal had come history check came back clear after twenty minutes at that point the traffic stop was extended so that canine sniff could be performed on the vehicle and it was twenty minutes after that initial twenty minute period when the contraband was actually found proper procedure during the sniff the dog sniff did not provide the troopers with probable cause to justify the search and that's that's one of the main issues that i think is important here because setting aside the fact that well first of all we do argue that there was not reasonable suspicion to even delay the stop to perform the snuff but after this it was performed if it didn't provide probable cause then that means any reasonable suspicion that existed was dispelled at that point and they should have finished the business of the traffic stop issued a citation to mr sanchez and concluded the stop that's not what happened instead an unconstitutional search of the entire vehicle was performed they searched the cab of the vehicle they got inside they were which was addressing the unlicensed driver you know driving a vehicle with expired tags and when they didn't do that that the unconstitutional search also transformed the entire stop into an unconstitutional seizure because that additional delay we know from the rodriguez cases from court case any any measurable extension of a traffic stop and beyond you know beyond the time that's needed to accomplish its mission is unreasonable and unconstitutional and any fruits of that have to be suppressed a so how much time then between the financial twenty minutes of well there's twenty minutes and then you said the dog only took a minute or two how  into the second twenty minutes was the dog done with his or her work after i would say after after the dog finished i i was looking at the video of this just the other day i believe after the dog finished there was approximately i approximate eleven and a half minutes that i counted between the time a dog was finished and the time they found the contraband so you have that initial twenty minutes you have a few minutes that they have to wait for the dog to get there and perform perform a sniff i think that's again i think that's about ten minutes between the time a criminal history check comes back and the time the dog sniff is done and you have about eleven and a half minutes from the end of the dog the end of that dog sniff to the final bit of the of the suspected contraband so are you is so you are you saying alert that that's when the key is to stop i think that's the only objective way to do it when you look at the objective facts of it and what things actually  provided that again the main issue that you're looking at is what was were these things reasonable and you have to and what was the behavior objective only reasonable or unreasonable when you're looking at it from an objective standpoint like that and you have an improperly performed canine snuff that that that everybody later says that this was no good this didn't provide this didn't provide probable cause i think that's everywhere right then the dog alert of several different places in the vehicle well that's that's that's a matter of contention and we have one holiday challenge that we challenge that the whether there was in the order oh ok or indication or whatever so we expired tags you've got a driver with no license they don't own the vehicle all he says he's going to little rock to paint but he has no painting equipment with them they're going to stay at a hotel but they don't know the name of the hotel that sounds pretty suspicious so let's say i don't know maybe you won't agree but to me that sounds like he's got results suspicion that the taint him for some period of time to do some kind of investigation to figure out what's going on if you if you accept that how long can he detain  to try to figure out what's going on with this very suspicious activity well again it you're just not a person i would say we do disagree that there was a reasonable suspicion we could then that that there were explanation for biden especially in context of that those are added into this due to the totality of circumstances such that there really wasn't much to go on and prolong it and again you do have to look at it at reasonable missier and it is complicated by the fact that they ended up performing this search at the end of the you know not not not relying on after the fact but again the test is whether it's whether the mission of the stop is well ok again just when you have real suspicion usually these cases involve and involve calling a dog and performing dogs and that's that's what most reasonable suspicion cases seem to turn on you think there's drug activity you call the drug you see whether or not there is the end of that dog sniff i would say that's that's the cut off the jail with and then what is the trooper supposed to do at that point i mean can a trooper release a car with expired tags not a driver a driver's license  that the driver doesn't own can they send that person on their way already have to say we're going to impound the car cause you don't have your tags expired you know have a license now we've got to figure out and there's two kids in the car that complicates  know what he was going to do he said he was going to let them leave and drive away and that he was i believe that what he said was that he was leaning toward citing the driver he was he was sure about that is at least he would give them a ticket but he did not make the decision as to whether he's going to impound or not you know but but doesn't that then go into the issue of prolonging the search because if you're sitting here the trooper there saying ok i got a car with a unlicensed driver expired tags they don't own it i know i'm either going to one of two things i'm going to either impound it or i'm going to tell me i have to come and get a driver with a license who can drive it either one i'm going to take some time does that work into the equation of whether another ten or fifteen minutes is too long well judge i would just i would point to something in the rodriguez case the says that the reason most of a traffic stop depends on what the officers in fact do and what they in fact did in this case was perform an unconstitutional search of the truck so regardless of  what they did do i just i don't know to what degree could speculate about what exactly would have happened or how exactly the stop would have ended other than it wasn't proven that he would have impounded it there was some argument made us to inevitable discovery whether that was an issue but the government to never put on any evidence about what policies would have done what policy was and was in effect and what kind of search would have been done so you can't conclude even if it was impounded that this would have a so there's no way to tell you know even if they've been impounded there's no way to tell that that that this is what would have happened that they would have found the contraband under under the vehicle eventually and again i would just i just want to that this is exactly the kind of thing that the unreasonably then they perform and then a reasonable unconstitutional search on the basis of that improper dog sniff trips they should or should be encouraged to should be encouraged  it please the court my name is amy driver to and i the state attorney appearing on behalf of the government for the western district of arkansas and i should also note that i was the attorney for the government at the district court level as well during the suppression hearing your hon appellant now states that he that is a nickname and americanised nickname for his middle name jaime but i would point out that trooper neider didn't have any documentation as to his first middle or either one of his last names and takes one and a half minutes the officer start at the time the dogs sniff was fine right yes right ok this is so messed up tell me why there isn't some kind of taint from the and our expert said he should have laid the tell the idea that was in violation or not in accordance with the state police procedure on a drugs now if the officer on the scene or trooper kneejerk has no idea about it and act at least appeared to not understand that that was a whether or not that was something he should have known in the first place but regardless it was of the rather technical we could afford offered a good faith as an explanation but nonetheless it was a technical infraction of what our policy is we felt it was best in the most honest thing to do was concede that it couldn't be based upon probable cause but i had already argued up believe in my  suppression hearing brief that this was the exterior at the vehicle and they didn't need probable cause to make a visual examination of the enter carriage now as to the detention in arguing that the related to the stop could not be completed at that time in rodriguez the officer was able to get the driver's license the registration and insurance from rodriguez he was able to get the passengers driver's license he was made able to get their records and ask about their destination there were no red flags phrased unlike that situation trooper neither is inundated with contradictions suspicion and a lack of information neither one of these people has a driver's license or the appellant gives a name is julie they can't determine the owner of the vehicle when to state that she doesn't know the in the state that his name is miguel but that may not be his real name and the insured car insurance card indicates a third party all together so can't make heads or tell of it their explanation for why they're driving five hours from farmers branch texas to little rock arkansas for two to three day paint shop with their entire family also doesn't add up they don't have any equipment or supplies appeal in our day well we've we've covered the fact that he gives the name of chile and again i would just point out that think the tripper doesn't have any kind of documentation as to what his name and asked the court found in rodriguez the officer is obligated to ensure the safety and responsibility of the vehicle as you pointed out he can't continue to allow these and licensed drivers to continue on in that was his testimony he has a duty in an obligation given the suspicious circumstances to investigate further any kind of alert from the dog and how much longer could the officer continue to hold the car past the drug sniffing presuming that that didn't provide probable cause for a search how long how much longer could this go well i house and where they were also the trooper noted that he had an insufficient i'm out of electrical wiring for that type of job those facts are substantially similar to this case where trooper nader takes to fight that he's trained that whenever they give an explanation for what the purpose of the trip is he looks to see if they have equipment or if they say they're just taking a trip to visit somebody do they have luggage that that matches that i'm going to bring him back on trac bit is that still which what you're arguing is that still just arguing that there was reasonable suspicion to continue to look into this but what else to the officer the officer didn't your identifying features of his circumstance that seem suspicious but there wasn't any follow up to to track down for example me go all over the kinds of things that you're saying were suspicious how long could this go in other words with the kind of suspicious conduct that you've described how long would a reasonable officer be able to hold him on the side of the road well i think that that's a fact instance of being choir but i will say i don't think that he could have continued on you know he could have continued asking the same questions over and over but you'll see that after the point that they that he gets the record return he's still trying to ask questions about the owner of the vehicle and because he's  he's getting three different stories here or two different stories in a different name on the insurance card so i don't think he can continue forever but if you look at part of the testimony i believe that trooper needers states that he often times tries to contact the owner of the vehicle which is a an ohio court of appeals case i would just point out obviously that doesn't this court is not bound by that decision but that is a g p s case in the supreme court has thoroughly not a search but he says if you turn this is i think a stereo case to see the serial number or you do anything to discourage it then it is a search and you have probable cause do they have probable cause when they start it's a black something they say right but the spare tire it's a black like plastic some black plastic back right at it doesn't become a surgeon and they don't have probable cause at that point so they do not they had to have probable cause at that point and th court held the moment that they see the black bag which is a form a tyranny all they have probable cause to search and they did they took that to a garage and they to back up with me a second is that probably cause based on the drug  no that's probable cause based upon the identification of something foreign in the spare tire as trooper they can be you know just tools or you know anything as well if you look at the testimony trooper needier testified that in his nine years of experience and he does trip criminal interdiction he he teaches criminal interdiction as well he had never come across something non contraband board legal hidden in the spear tire ordinary lot ordinary law abiding people don't hide i don't hide legitimate items inside the spare tire that's why the district court found that at that point they had probable cause national mentioned that if the  a deal hey about the fact that he claims that corporal bowman must have punctured it or done something with them to determine that it was a controlled substance and i believe he does say well it's because of the math right here well in our jurisdiction in the state of arkansas math is the predominant drug that is found to be obviously couldn't tell what controlled substance it was he just knew that it was some type of contraband at that case look like he's got two objects or one i couldn't tell from your brief i you know your honor i think in at the time they're at of the hearing there wasn't much made about that so why didn't you review it for that but in the last few days  disturb it he would have been legitimately able to do so is that is there a meaningful difference between expectation of privacy and the under care when you voluntarily park your car someplace you go to the store you go visit a friend and you park it on the street versus when you've been pulled over and you're not there voluntarily and you're simply detained for the purposes of a traffic stop that make a difference i don't believe it does but we i haven't come across any case where they where that has been the fact pattern it's always been involved we have a case where somebody is trap stopped for a traffic stop or coming across the border because this it i undisputed that the officer had to get on his back and get under the car that there is there's no there's no allegation or assertion that he could see this from the outside vantage point of just has to change his position as long as he's making and expect inspection from a public vantage point where he has the right to be thank you very much thank you for the argument ok turning first to the issue of the mr sanchez getting his name is jimmy i just want to point out briefly on that again that the that something that was not it was not even mentioned by trooper nader during the course of the hearing it's something that if you review the video he asks miss went as a question about that she would provide some response that is that is unintelligible you can't make out what she's saying but then he never he never brings that up again he never makes an issue of that i just i don't think there's really much of an issue there to mr ayers point about the reason that the government conceded that probable cause wasn't and wasn't provided by the dogs and if i just want to point out that none of that actually none of the explanation she provided actually appears in the record other than what the district court said was improper procedure was followed and it didn't provide probable cause so that's that's what the record shows about that  say i don't understand how you can see a black paper or a black plastic bag under you know up above the spare tire of a truck and then conclude that it's i believe actually the word that he uses in the video was dope he said maybe it's all this dope under here in some ways piercing through this opaque black plastic i think i think that the government's proposed interpretation of what happened is inconsistent with with the facts and i would point out that that he did have some kind of some kind of a tool some kind of an implement that can be seen as actually after he gets out from under it it's got some kind of a handle it appears to be some kind of several inches of metal on the end well that provides probable cause does it make a difference if you see a plas is that the way that the tire of the tire was flat against the undercarriage and that there were holes in the in the wheel part and that they could just see up through i don't think they could see how it was how it was secured or if it was secure it was basically resting above the spare tire rather than being inside it and you know we would contend that that just seeing some black plastic up above his rhetoric does not provide probable cause necessary to to actually be disturbed in some way and conduct a search and i see that my time's expired