court good morning my name is ralph metric i'm a lawyer from chicago and i had the privilege of representing mister m washington requires that if a person is seized for a traffic stop and that the driver does not have a valid license for whatever reason the officer then is compelled by case law and  statute to find an alternative to impoundment and here this officer i respectfully would a certain segment that this court that officer rutherford the washington state trooper did neither he did not even choir from the passenger whether or not she had a valid driver's license were the current the car was take your honor the car after it was seen and both the driver in the passenger removed from the car the car was then taken to a gas station and i'm sorry it might have been to the troopers barracks or a gas station but what happened there is that there was a drug dog it was towed and there was a park and a was either a guest station or at i believe it was a gas station but at that under police control it was under police control it was it i'm sorry your honor let me back up it was not a gas station it was the towing service our garage and an alternative driver he immediately called for the drug dog and in the transcripts that were submitted here he says he calls for a total force almost immediately and then when he's talking to his brother trooper in this case before  detection there was a canine that the that the tech the drugs that lot as a matter of fact this officer says to the to his brother officer you know there's two walk you can so i have them in my vehicle but i'll give you further details i'm walking  happened during the during the course of the motions to press he claims that he had spoken to mr americas inquiring about his wife whether or not she has a license but it's just so happens it's just so n i understand what you're saying from your position as an advocate but i also i want you to address in terms of it seems to me that the court made some factual findings here that there was spew in the evidence in terms of what the officer testified to what was in the officer's report what your client testified to i think there was also a stipulation as to what your client's whites would have testified to but it seems that there there there was some dispute in terms says the officer testified that he that she didn't have any identification all right and and there is some testimony to the a fact that that occurred before the car was impounded although i know that you dispute that but i know you're right and you know and i understand that but just obviously i'm looking at what our standard of review is yes if the court made certain factual findings it would seem that the answer from the hearing let's see mr maritz for identification all the after he was one hundred percent certain that he would impound the vehicle and that's in your opening brief but then in looking at the transcript it would appear that that actually suggested the tr license the court further held that there was no other licensed drivers close at hand who could have removed the minivan so i got you've got those in the record how do you reconcile i think it yeah well how do we get past court with all due respect to the district court judge here the district court judge saying if that if the district court heard i produced identification before i mean i  with if you look at these facts in total from the totality of the circumstances the officers own words at the very beginning he says go ahead and start the toe he was in extremely committed to searching that car and that's why he got the drug glock that lot and also his own words again your honor i can't emphasize enough his own words the other trooper that he calls for assistance he's he says what's what's going on he says well i will tell you when you when they get here when you get here and then he says again or goes to walk you can say i have them in my vehicle but i'll give you further details if this was an ordinary traffic stop what's the big secret exercise discretion he didn't do it it's simple why does it miraculously appear are you familiar with the supreme court of illinois i am tell me about that case the u immediately after the stop there was a drug detection dog that came on the scene you only supreme court said before you do that it is not a nonevent even though i think the state had argued that that just bringing the dog is a nonevent after all it's not a search even though suppose you can turn it into and i would if the court would allow me it's not of my griefs there was no probable cause or she said no reasonable suspicion as you and i supreme court said for bringing the dog in the first place so they applied to terri standard before you could even the court my name is james targeted represent the united states in this matter and in response in the supplemental expert of records at page seventy five and seventy six your honor there is reference to the troopers testimony that because of the the location of the traffic stop from his experience working the area in the distance that that think before the before the on the car why the inventory and there was not not car why did they do it in this case right because it wasn't on the record it i will give you facts that are not on the record but basically what happened was during the course of this the trooper based hearing because the court doesn't have a full record had this been an appeal on some issues that issue then this court would have the full record this quote would have all of the other factors which led this trooper to suspect that this vehicle of whether there was a violation of the fourth fourth amendment by the district by the trooper not inquiring whether the passenger of the stop vehicle had a valid driver's license before impounded the car that is the narrow issue  as being an issue that would have been raised so i'm not going to defend them but i i don't know that there's incompetent counsel based on what i saw i think the narrow issue and the defendant has narrowed the or the appellant has no this dow in the appendix to that this week that the testimony was a city did ask the passenger for identification of washington law because there is no suspicion of any wrongdoing the trooper cannot demand identification she doesn't have any identification and that factual dispute was resolved in favor of the trooper by the district court and that factual determination was made but that is really the crux of this argument as they are saying is that that decision by the district court to believe and to adopt the testimony of trooper rutherford was incorrect and if in a record the really consistent just going through the in this case it was a van a mini van they just go through for personal items that they will go through any open container and just what they're looking for  jewelry money wallets cash anything that's of value and then they will make a listing of that and it becomes an inventory sheet so that there's no issue about what was and what was not in the vehicle what it's taken into license and it's not any quite there isn't any question that impliedly cross examination is waived there was an agreement by the government clearly and ignored by the district court judge that in this case   piece of evidence or looking that's true but i will leave the court with this it is highly suspicious it's just so happens that this very pertinent this very material piece of impeachment or conversation if you will takes place after the tape is conveniently shut off and i want to address one other issue that's what counsel raised about suspicion in this case this was again an ordinary traffic stop the fact that the place from out of state and where the supreme court held that police may have her size discretion to one pound a vehicle quote so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criterion and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity and that's what happened in this case this was a fait accompli this wapas or had made up his mind he said it in his broadcasts and it came up during the motion to suppress he said it let's cooperate tall and he said it twice and he admitted that he did it before if you don't believe him before he asked any questions of mr maritz or mrs ramirez again he was in absolutely committed to searching that car that's why they brought the dogs that he didn't want to call off the dogs in this case and didn't want to call off the toll in this case for all those reasons i appreciate this panel's attention to this matter and i respectfully ask you to reverse the district court in this case thank you again