incorrectly apply the right we guess holding because that assumes that all safety precautions are taken in furtherance of the traffic mission to stop the rodriguez opinion requires the court to evaluate whether a safety even rodriguez as i recall i can't find a quote of him but even rodriguez acknowledges that part of a stop includes taking measures for officer safety i know they mentioned that there so why isn't it the case that in this rather brief encounter that's all that the officers were doing and there was no prolongation beyond the purpose of the traffic stop itself  there are other cases of i'm remembering you know where you can ask somebody get out of the car why did this go so far beyond the boundaries your honor i think it's because the rodriguez opinion tells us that even safety precautions taken up in furtherance of a detour or offend the th amendment and we know that because it really gives itself the officer to traffic stop he issued the ticket and then he engaged in a safety precaution which is he went back to the car and he waited even though he had a drug sniffing dog in his own car he waited and called for backup and waited until that officer came before conducting the set and it was magical i mean judge scudder let me ask you this question when and questioning regarding mr tompkins criminal history i think if the court is not inclined to choose that is the right because i think it's also certainly appropriate at the moment that officer  separate ordinary criminal wrongdoing and that exit order is taken in furtherance of that objective of that other investigation and they go back to your starting point because i want to i want to ask you a question about that i thought i thought that's might might be what you said what concerns me about that is if you're focusing on the moment that officer far yes returned to the driver's window after running the license check in the criminal history check if the detour began at that precise moment it had to be did it not because the statement that the officer made was about mr tompkins criminal record as opposed to some statement that was more pertinent to the traffic stop is that what had nothing to do with traffic safety and nothing to do with the events ensuring we know what we know though from the supreme court's decision in cases like arizona vs johnson from two thousand and nine do we not that officers have some amount of flexibility in questions they can ask you're in a traffic stop so the point that i'm trying to get at is it seems difficult for your position to say that the  amendment would preclude a question about his criminal record at the moment he returned to the driver's side window so i think where we get from there are egos opinion is the point where the specifically says no contrary to what justice alito says it but to those types of unrelated checks cannot be conducted unless there is reasonable suspicion and that makes sense because many itself tells can't can i can i say i mean that that's something that i find interesting in this case because we have testimony and of finding actually by the district court that various wasn't finished with the traffic part of this stop and we're not talking about thirty five minutes or something you know we're talking about a relatively brief and the district court relies on his testimony at the suppression hearing  among other things and so my question for you is is is is is this a subjective inquiry embedded in the midst of this object of question about probable cause and judge chose to credit and sound visible credible so i don't see where we can nd guess that and if we believe that he wasn't done with the traffic citation then he can still under  i think that based on the record the court can find that it was there but i'd also submit that for review has told us that it's not a question of whether or not a citation was issued but whether the officer was engaged in a detour and by moving to the objective of searching the car the officer engaged in a detour and it's not the question of you know how you completed all of the checklist stops by by handing over the ticket because that's what justice alito points out  stop had not been programmed now ms jackson is that a a subjective inquiry does that depend on the police talking about what they meant to do and how they intended to do it honor i don't believe it's absurd jact of inquiry i believe that it is objective based and and here under rodriguez and this court's precedent since rodriguez the court tells us to look at not  whether or not an action was taken before or after a traffic ticket or warning was issued but instead whether or not the beach would have been reasonable for the traffic mission to complete the government's  regardless of officer farias is subject of intent which he testified to that the traffic mission here was not complete at the time either at the time he asked the defendant about his criminal history records approximately five minutes and forty seconds into the stop or at the time he issued the order for mr farias to excuse me mr tompkins to exit the vehicle so what object to flee remains to be done for the traffic mission which i n that was all done and he's checked the right registrations check the licensee's made sure there are no outstanding warrants going through the usual moves your honor what could have been we we don't know what else could have taken place because the the traffic stopped when a different direction obviously after mr tompkins refused to exit the vehicle but what happens in other stops is that the officers decide whether or not they're going to issue a we don't have that record before the court though because of what occurred after also if you're i don't know about that i don't know about that here on page ninety of the appendix in the testimony there is a there is a record and i have a i have a related question picking up on were judge wood was going or what she was asking about and the record that you have before you mr jackson or we have before us here is there were questions about you know what was going on when he returned to the driver side window and officer farea says while the investigation wasn't over because i still have to talk to my partner about it talk to the partner about the ticket ok so the  what i what i actually think is going on here gets right at the rub of the object of versus subjective question because it does seem to me in fairness to the point that this panel body is making that officer farias was going to fish a little bit when he returned to the driver side window in other words you know what because why else ask about the criminal history all he had to do is say i need to step out of the car for a few minutes i need to talk to my colleague but i need to get out of the car that's not what happened he asked him a question about his rap sheet and so that's a bit of fishing now and maybe fishing that's allowed under johnson and it may be fishing that is objectively reasonable here because there's no pro law in mint so that's what i'd like you to react to you do have a record that the investigation was going to continue any in the investigation was whether they were going to issue a ticket needed to talk to his partner but that's not what came out of his mouth when he returned to the driver side window that's correct your honor  this point and specifically inquiring about how the rap sheet is what it is the crew on history check is what it is what it what it what is that question and other other than fishing now maybe related to officer safety because it relates not to drug convictions or questions about contraband other than a weapon instead it directly relates to an extensive history criminal history involving firearms and the record reflects that that's what officer furious was concerned about from the beginning of the stop he was concerned for christmas partner safety because of the potential for gun violence during a traffic stop in th distinguished the circumstances correct he says well those are i'm watching the video he says those are old and then the officer comes back and says well they're not that old three year old so he's attempting to distinguish the reasoning for the with in the question correct i agree your honor from officer faeries this perspective which the court credited after watching the video that mr tomkins reaction was not just distinguishing them but instead trying to be a vase of in defensive related to them specifically stating those are old he doesn't pay attention to those as long as he has his license and registration everything's fine when you know officer various his perspective as as he's testified he had a conviction from just or excuse me an arrest just from the year prior and he had numerous convictions also various testified to seeing at least ringback four convictions related to gun gun offenses your honor that neighborhoods that has issues with gun violence where the where the driver is sitting in a way that he thinks is trying to conceal the lower half of his body he wants to inquire more about this extensive and recent gun history in order to further the interest of officer safety the government also agrees with with your honor's that that that questioning itself cannot be found to be unreasonable because here it lasted less than twenty seconds and was in order drivers and occupants of vehicles during traffic stops to exit their vehicles and that's exactly what officer perry's did here because he because certain that the defendant may have a weapon on him and in fact had just before he acted order from his partner that there there's no connection between having a ton of the card possessing contraband the only thing the government has advanced is the idea that he could have hit the officers with the baton but i think that it's that kind of reasoning is