prepared to hear your argument if your honor thank you all the judges for allowing me to argue the case and behalf of my client mr soderman we have before us a case that seemingly has a lot of issues but much like a high to an out of the way fishy spot we're going to have to get through all the trees and we the find that one place we need to get to in this place the place in this case the place we need to focus on  exception the th amendment sworn requirement that save the search in this case and that was even though the car at issue was taken the police impound lot and defined the automobile exception apply here the district court unit case from the circuit well before getting to the cast you had a case i did want to go back in time a little bit to talk about the automobile exception it started supreme court found that you can take part in a lot and hold it for magistrate issue a warrant or you can search it right on the side of the road and then of course later on we get to the it's circuit cast and you get a case court also said the automobile exception justifies warrantless searches of a car with those two theoretical one hundred eggs in it so you're the mobility of the car and also the slo so again we believe the automobile exception doesn't apply just for that reason the court does find it applies and we believe looking at all the facts in this case there weren't also the officers testimony most of the facts that they used for problem houser germination were also the same facts they use response suspicion to extend the stop in so look at the government's brief i understand the government's argument is you know what we're trying to do is this divide and conquer analysis of each individual fact but really that's not what we're trying to do and what we're trying to show the was mischaracterized by the government in the district court and they fall into a few different categories i mean some facts are when you look at them i mean so in viewed alone i mean it's not something that could be part of the problem because equation some of these facts are you know the presence of the so does are energy drinks the snacks in the car and i mean look in those facts it's just simply impossible include them in that problem of the nation because that describes so many motorists on the road and then there are some facts the officers didn't consider and this was brought up  in one of the exhibits alludes exhibit six the car video when the officers were talking about the marijuana use and how it didn't matter because he was from colorado you know the officers didn't consider it the district court to consider it  so it's at odds with the fact the officers didn't even consider that in reasonable suspicion although once later put in the problem after david it's other factors don't have a bas you think it's necessary to know how much that is why i would say it is your honor because i mean a lot of bills is it fifty dollars in bills which is and i'm out a lot of people carry around on the movie you know my daughter is eight years old it probably has twenty five dollars in ones on her wall and if it's a lot of bills it's a lot of bills if it was you know two thousand five hundred dollars thousand five hundred dollars bills then yeah i think it's a lot of put again the officer testified you don't see how much was in here it's not like the case we cited in our brief where officers have found you know bills that were packaged  honor i don't think you can clearly draw that i mean i know the officers may have had that suspicion of the time although you know that the stepmom did end up passing away of cancer it's clear she had cancer and i believe the father  on that exhibit six video had mentioned on the phone call he knew someone was going to come in some point just didn't know when it was going to happen the start of the statement about that not recently you know all the conversation about the drug that you assert occurred what statements are you seeking to have suppressed and maybe another way of asking that is at what point was he had custody and you think that the statements made there after should not beyond what was necessary to write those tickets and we believe you know all the fact that shorty was in custody was going with the miranda argument the government centrally arguing if it's a traffic stop there's this per se rule that you don't need a miranda warnings but i think in the district court of knowledge that you do still need miranda warnings if the stop turns into a custodial interrogation and that's it that's a follow up question as well i didn't see much discussion about interrogation because even if he was in custody if there was no interrogation those statements would not be suppressed of all it that was it really harry i believe that's true but i do think there was sufficient evidence in the record to show he was in turkey i mean there's the officers body and there was limited questions about it but we do believe there's interrogation that happened  states there are three issues in this case from the government's perspective st that the stop was validly sended based on reasonable suspicion to that there was probable cause to both seize and search the vehicle in this case and then finally the miranda issue and the government takes position that miranda was not required to be given to mr soderman and i will start with issue two on probable cause from the outset of this stop there were indicators to the trooper that there was something unusual it began with driving along next to mr soderman and seeing him nervously tapped the steering wheel as the trooper was about to make a traffic stop when he did make this stop he saw that the that mr soderman had all of his information ready outside the window license registration proof of insurance and that his hands were shaking and that he was breathing heavily he appeared to be  nervous also he noticed the snacks including a loaf of bread as well as the energy drink such as mountain dew and once he comes over to the car the trooper is very clear that he wants him to come sit in the vehicle with them and mr soderman is very reluctant to do so and the trooper believed he testified that he thought that sort of and was distancing himself from the trooper there was a large amount of cash it was three thousand four hundred dollars but to the point is as to what the officers knew at the time and certainly the government takes a position that that the money would have appeared to be a large amount of something just by looking at it and that's what the officers believed when they looked at it but they also knew when we talked a little bit later about m idea that he wanted to tow the car and self when the trooper told him that's going to cost thousands of dollars for you to do that sort of that you see the cash that i have i can pay for it i'll pay cash and also later on  when she's discussing that with him she says to him so you've got a lot of cash and he says yes i'm i make fifty dollars an hour as a as a property maintenance man so they there was no this there was no guessing about the fact that sort of it was in possession of a large amount of cash then of course there was the aftermarket wires that i want to ask you got about that council because you know i remember my time in college i had a car and i in the search warrant about the types of drug trafficking and interdiction training that she has had and she testified and also put into the record for the state court judge to look at in the affidavit that indicates the aftermarket wires indicate that there could be a vehicle hide situation going on where things have been changed around in the car to make room in the vehicle so the drugs could then be hidden and then those aftermarket wires are brought in after the fact so a believe that that stop it had not stopped a shower or change of clothes and wanted to get to where his destination was as expeditiously as possible and limit his time on the road and certainly one of the key facts in this case the government admits is the very bizarre and over reaction to the news that his license was suspended it was it's highly unusual to react the way that he did to this is that a license where he's really pleading and begging with the the trooper to not go by what the dispatch computer says and to instead rely on bank statements that he has on his phone so that he can drive off in his car and not have his car be impounded and then certainly that's that overreaction is propounded by this again is very highly unusual request he's going to tow his own vehicle ringback from council bluffs iowa to the border of iowa and minnesota and  looking at that even with the troopers you know relatively just a few years on the road that struck him as incredibly odd which is why you have the other officer responding to help with much more experience to be able to look at this and certainly  if you look at the demeanor of mr soderman the whole time he's agitated he's nervous he's confused about where he was and he's not able to orient himself even though the officers tell him a different points in time during their interaction that where he is and that he's not in the morning on i thirty five north headed towards minnesota he's much further away he doesn't explain to the officer when he's asked why it's so problematic that he separated from his car it's not a problem he says to have his mother and stepmother come down within four or five hours that would take i suppose to come retrieve him but he does not want to be separated from his car and does not want the car to go in police custody and that becomes very clear throughout their interaction that that that is the issue he also repeatedly move the discussion back to the driver's license issue which is based on the officers training and experience was consistent with a drug trafficker wanting to  deflect the discussion and to move the discussion away from the drug trafficking inquiry or the suspicious facts inquiry and focus more on something else and of course just for us as you mentioned the father and step mother did not know he was coming at least based on what the officer felt at the time the information available to her which we would submit under this court's president under this court's press precedent do weight would be given to her her reasonable actions  the father's mention of the well not recently that was also not just a statement in isolation from the father that also was confirmed when the officers were speaking to sort of and after that he confirmed that he had a history of using hard drugs in the past and they had been clean for years and then we also have another bizarre reaction when the officer tells him that they might be they might have a dog to come out and sniff the car and he reacts to that in a very unusual way by saying well it's not that they would find drugs in the car that he's concerned about he says he's concerned they might smell the marijuana that was smoked in there three weeks before which is an unusual thing to say in response to that and may indicate that he has some knowledge of  of canine dogs and what they can and can't smell and of course he was repeatedly asking to smoke a cigarette which again goes along with this is behavior turning to the point that  my friend mr roth made about the automobile exception certainly in this case the guy it takes the position that the probable cause needed to seize the car is the same as it is to search it and that there is no requirement that they  that they search it on the side of the road they're allowed to take it to the impound lot we believe and submit that the that the law is clear on that point i would also respond to the issue on the miranda warnings not being required if the defendant was not in custody and we think that we submit that the most clear example of that is when sort of an ask am i being detained and he's told well you have a suspended license so you can go to jail for it if you want and he says i'm not trying to go to jail so instead what the officer does and the trooper does is that they continue to try to figure out what to do with him and what to do with this car and that is predominantly the inquiry that takes place because ordinarily they would just say call somebody locally have them come pick you up we'll tell your car here's the address for the impound lot and then that would be how that situation would be resolved but given this highly unusual request to tow the car and to not let the officers do that that of course takes up a lot of time there but what about that officer is telling telling him well we can bring in drug dog the government would take the position that the officers were not behaving in course of fashion i believe that the officer was was actually and actually said she was trying to be very straight up and very now that she said she was a straight shooter with them and said words to the effect of i don't want to go the long way if i don't have to because i feel at this point that i can seize your car and apply for a search warrant which she said she would do and she and she that wasn't an empty threat she did in fact do that and and he said in response to that that he he didn't he was not he was very adamant he would not give consent but her point was if you would let me can search the car and then when he declined that she said well if there is something in the car you don't want to see could you let me just take a more limited search in her she's trying to if there's nothing going on and she's trying to let him get back to being able to go on his way and have this suspended license issue taken care of without having to seize the car and it's a neat when she mentioned that that job done at that point if he didn't that the officers know that was not a canine available at that time when they told him that was a possibility your honor i believe the record in the case was that she knew that there was a drug dog in the area but that she wasn't sure how long it would take for the for the dog to show up so the way she looked at it was the dog made ma come or may not come so but of course the as i mentioned earlier the question elicited what we submit would be additional grounds for probable cause because of the telling admission that he has a response to the drug  dog but certainly when when the officer is discussing with him at about eight hundred and ten she just tells and i'll point blank that she's investigating drug trafficking and the and she says i'm trying to give your options the government's and if that's not course it that's just you're being practical by saying i can deprive you of your car for this amount of time or d if you're willing to give me consent to search that and then we can do that or if you're not willing to do the search then we could wait for a drug dog to be willing to wait so we what's the government's position on whether there was any interrogation you are our position is that this d is falls directly with and terri this is a terri stop and there's line of cases where the officers are asking questions based on reasonable suspicion and instead of having the answers dispel that suspicion instead what we have is the more answers that are good and this is fissions are confirmed and right up until the point where the officer says to him  believe around eight hundred and thirty dollars i'm going to seize your car and you're free to go certainly at that point he's no longer being detained he's he's free to walk away and i think she tells him we have no cause to hold you but we're we we do it for your car and so that coupled with the initial discussion about when he was detained and told that he was detained and why and that he wasn't going to be taken to jail in the government's position would be that this is a this is a terr as to the other issue in the case as far as extending the traffic stop we would cite the decision that was cited by the district court i don't believe it's cited in the government's brief and i apologize for that but we would cite that case as opposed rodriguez line of cases that would be in line with what happened here in this case as far as the extension of the stop based on reasonable suspicion and that the traffic stop did change with the course from speeding t suspended license issue and then finally to the to the drug trafficking suspicion and unless the court has any further questions will the government will submit with those comments the fact that mr soderman was in custody at the time looking at all the factors that determine whether somebody is in custody there is just one factor the fact that he left at the end of the interrogation cuts in favor of the government  we believe he was in custody for the purposes of miranda the other thing that the government and mentioned during their argument of the government talk a lot about all the different facts of the case   anybody would react in that manner than mr sort of been reacted and i believe that's all the points that i i see no additional questions and thank you both for your arguments here this afternoon and we appreciate that and we appreciate your willingness to appear by video will take that are under advi