officer observed the driver follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon the condition of the highway there's exactly no evidence of any of those things that was offered by the government the troopers testimony was limited to three second rule they offered into evidence a copy of the secretary of state's recommendations but that doesn't get you where you need to be to stablish probable cause the trooper had to detail  observations work to support the elements that would support the statute that he based his stock on it just never happened that should be the end of this case marking it and as much of the government says what the trooper later observed in additional three second violation same problem same result if the law doesn't have the three second rule a member of the executive branch which is the secretary of state it cannot then define what the statute requires in right been something that the legislature did not put there so again whether you're looking at what they say was the original reason for the being pulled over or what they say this and i'm going violation neither thing passes muster under what the statute requires here observation was driving too close to the truck i think yes but also the other thing about holding on and stuff like that  never been an arresting officer and why people stopped and you know he's done thousands of stops and ok that seems kind of weird but you know there's a crowd of cars going along and somebody really that simple but i just mean to that point about holding the steering wheel if you will that the ten to position the way that they teach you represented i think that's not a reason to stop you and furthermore at the similar things to the supreme court recently heard in byrd and they express concern about your stopping people for doing things that they are supposed to do and are commonly done so i don't think that that should have tingled this i do sense or whatever it is in that that's an important point i don't shouldn't use that to diminish found that the following to close was a stablished by the timing that the officer detail but again the district court found the same track the government didn't speak in taishan that it's looking to produce state requires as opposed to what the statu requires so the district court got that wrong it was left there by the government and we want to draw back to what it is the probable cause requires a three second rule isn't it you have to show what the statute story language guess it's a question of that with people reaction somebody sees a cop you know two or three hundred yards ahead sitting there that's what you do different things about making sure you in the line  that's not probable cause and i want to say that if the government's position is accepted here this is a bad for motorists everywhere this is everybody on the dan ryan around the edens or on i seventy you are looking at bumper to bumper traffic all over the looming and i think well i'm not down there need to i came up i thirty five but i was on the train that ran parallel to it and i looked at the window as i came up here a lot of three second violations going we should have marked stops on three second violation minute forty second mark he waits until fourteen thirty one or fourteen twenty five coincidentally that's when the canines outside the door i think they're not exactly the way that they should have gone under rodriguez the mission the traffic stop was completed the officer minutes i think the on the video the stop isn't actually did intell about three and a half minutes into the video and it's approximately thirteen and a half minutes of these explaining the take it to them you can hear printing off on the video but going back to the initial argument that my friend started with is that the three seconds there was evidence in the court below that the trooper relied on the vehicle code that can be found on defendant's appendix pages sixteen and seventeen he was a ed what is the purpose for you conducting this time and distance calculation and the answer was to make sure that the vehicles are traveling at a safe distance behind other vehicles on the interstate he goes on to say that the only vehicle code has a logical follow up be what is that and how do i abide by that law now in this case he relied on that three seconds but the silver dodge wasn't even close to the three seconds the evidence at the trial court was clear that on this third instance it was one point two seconds that mr lewis followed that semi sir just when he testified that that was similar to the first in testifying in the court below he noted that it was that change in posture when he first observed mr lewis the gripping the steering wheel that pressing himself back it was that strange a posture that he said was inconsistent with the thousands of there was a question raised about the difference between this and the dan ryan i think it's important to note through the video that the conditions of interstate fifty five southbound during this doc allowed for a greater following distance before trooper sweeney effect clearly observed at least twice the following distance as mr lewis that the detention itself was also reasonable mr lewis was lawfully seized at that point in time and there's nothing wrong in th concerned that occurred within the first minute also within that first moment he testified that he was running his criminal history check in getting that return on his driver's license warrant status and criminal history so in no way can say that conversation measurably extended the duration of that stop to the silver dodge that is not accurate the record is clear at the finish appendix page nineteen fifty one and fifty four at page nineteen trooper sweeney said proceeded to the right lane behind mr lewis and activated hi the question here your honor is not whether or not he violated the only vehicle code but whether also at reasonable grounds to believe he did based on this record of the district court correctly found that he did  are unrelated the mission to stop my clients gone before that can arise so they did unreasonably prolong the stop there's just no other way about it they might think that they can ask all these questions but they can't or they're unrelated mission stop rodriguez that right line for us but there's another problem where they say the officer was able to stop the intel guy three seconds because he couldn't explain what the violation is otherwise there again importing from the to secretar there's a passing reference statute don't deny that but we say look to what the officer relied on to make the stop it was a three second rule up and down what about his suspicions before the start so if you think there's any grounds for suspicion well i about drawing common sense experience is not everybody does this how does that square up with reasonable suspicion and where does that go in the metric of probable cost everybody does it cannot then be something that is a typical in costs for the officer to