old man driving down an interstate highway probably license properly insured committing the infraction other than speeding in a line of traffic driving seventy nine miles per hour in a seventy five the point in that video inside the motor vehicle b officer does begin to write a motor vehicle citation in fact at least six minutes passes before he begins to write a motor vehicle citation in those critical six minutes he interrogates mr di on simply for a vehicle asking him questions personal intimate questions that have nothing to do with the motor vehicle citation  questions when the officer would provoke mr into a conversation and then he would follow up mr dialogue this officer created a platform to ask more questions than to follow up his own answers to questions that he had  instigated when he began and it's on the videotape depicted in the evidence when he began the conversation he launched right into me asking him about where he got his money from and why he was in pennsylvania at seeing what his relationship was none of these things had anything to do with his identification or his status or the speeding ticket that he should've written when you look at the video although he pulls out a citation you'll know that his pen is not even moving he has his pen stationary and he's using it as a prop so that he can instigate conversation with that six critical minutes that passes prolonging this stop and although many cases show that prolonging the stop after a citation is given is get information regarding background criminal record check triple by inviting the citation he created his own border walk into to incriminate mr diallo so the first argument i make is that he had no right to do that he communication and stop with the officer was unlawfully delayed for and also the other cases cited say that it's not just a matter of voluntary yes even if the voluntary statement if it's a product of this are you saying that aspect of the encounter is problematic no i recognize that a police officer can ask about basic i taheri it when he sees a post office box and a magistrate at an address all of the not inconsistent i do not think that into the car the video starts an angle facing mr di on in the officer and he wanders into immediately say what do you do for a living where do you get your money it has nothing to do with attending ari it has nothing to do was reading that has to do wit personal questions because this is an officer who profiles people and he wants to get information that he can create his own suspicion with mr di on answers almost every question that this police officer asks him but quickly after he asks about consider the officers state of mind when you consider what he's trying to achieve which he can see into videotape supposed to arise that he's looking for drugs and he's his whole objective is to find drug couriers and when you consider that this mere chatter asking about a sporting event the rather he asking personal intimate questions because he's trying to provoke responses that he can then try to create his own foundation to say that he has suspicion would not exist to begin with what's the significance to  three things one i suggest that is in response to the concern for weapons and so his consent to look for weapons is limited to what he said for the weapons secondly the officer never takes up his invitation to look in the car at that point or leave nor is it thirty officers conduct underlies it underscores the fact that he doesn't have a concern for weapons later in the video he comes out and turns it back to his to die on down to the real world with mr behind him without even looking at him and by the time he gets back out of the your colleagues will be arguing that that someone wasn't nervous enough that that was suspicious conduct certainly if they maintain their calm and cool may you may thank you judge thompson's comment is the point i was trying to make talking about how infectious this six minute the way was with mr di on and the officer first got into the officer car when they first got into the car the officer waited six minutes before he began to run a criminal record check so nothing was done to further the event of a traffic ticket for six minutes and in that six minutes it's not just that it was personal questions that officer a large force for a person can ask anything to provoke to promote to delay the prolonging event so that there is something making claims exactly they think is suspicious if the person is not true doris if the person has  night they don't care for it's not as if the powers that he was coming from alaska is a totally different direction there are numerous roads to come from pennsylvania this one was just not to the officer's liking so he justified that he could then ask personal questions that had nothing terry that is it considered by de courts is basic information about where the person is coming from to see if it's accurate or a lie not to do a google search to have a screensaver of drugs and then in oppress the passenger of the citizen by saying that's what i'm looking for in creating not only a subjective state of mind the officer but then object of lead to the passenger that they should be nervous because they know they are now a target that happens before he even runs a criminal video i don't think that we should disregard the findings of fact by the court but when you look at the video there are many more facts not listed in the district court's findings that are beneficial to the appellate are you saying that the court clearly  thank you thank you