the controverted facts established by defense counsel at the suppression hearing we think supports that characterization we are here because we believe the district court respectfully erred by not recognizing the significance of those controversial facts when the motion to suppress with the night very briefly the police reports were prepared and there was testimony to the effect that the officer stopped mr mendez and then the observations were made regarding tattoos pertaining to a gang called the latin kings and then that's developed from there to some questioning about gang involvement prior prison term and eventually questions where the defendant or  answered that there was a gun in the car and that all happened within a period of eight minutes eight minutes according to the testimony of the officers not challenging the legitimacy of the or initial stop based on driving the vehicle with expired ta know we're not looking at the question i have for you counsel it seems to me that the district court in reviewing the testimony in the evidence found that based upon your client's initial response the scope of the terry stop expanded because when they asked him for his driver's license he presented not a driver's license but a california identification card so now we have another reason to make further inquiry and that is is this a licensed driver and that it was at the point when he got out of the car to ask him to get out of the car and when they were frisking him for weapons as when they saw the latin  tattoo for the first time so what i'm really asking you is doesn't our case law recognize in conducting a fourth amendment reasonable this analysis that as these sorts of things unfold the officer might very well be diverted from the original purpose for the stop in order to follow up on other clues that a trained police officer recognizes maybe and issue of suspicion of other crime doesn't mean i understand what you're saying except we think that the whole issue of the california id is actually a red herring because if that's as you recall from the excerpt from the testimony that was the very first thing the officer checked and that took all of two minutes really we think that the district court committed plain error on that point because the officer you're referring to is the same officer that said when he first went to his vehicle he checked the registration and that was before mr mendez was placed under arrest mr tittering turned defense counsel got the computer history records and showed that that was not the case they didn't do it til about twenty six or thirty minutes nine forty eight pm and the arrest had taken place  was faulty on that point well judge losing that he like jim well one of the reasons for writing police reports in the first place is to have some sort of of at least kind of an accurate reference point of what took place yet when you have their own computer controvert in what's in their reports and controvert in their oral testimony then you've got a real problem but you've got a credibility problem but what you're asking us to do  declare as a matter of law that there's only one version of the truth here and that's what the computers and the district court had all that evidence before it and and drew the credibility determination differently than the way you want to do it but is that clearly erroneous under the under our standard of review and in overturning findings of fact we think that it is because the district court never even recognized that that controversy existed and in the order which the whole theory as i read your pleadings to the district court your whole theory was that the this stuff should have been narrowly focused upon that driving violation the licensing violation that the vehicle was not properly registered and that it was impermissible for the officer in that eight minute or four minute time period to exist to ask a question that was unrelated to licensing or driving and a i understood the record the question that you challenge was where are you from and that that was implemented simple even though by then he'd seen the gang tattoo he's driving a car with arizona plates but stop in order to give you the relief you want i would agree with you your honor and add to that that at the point in time where the officer already determined the license was valid they should have made efforts to minimize to detention but they didn't do that  and i think that's the hope i'm going to officer safety standpoint i mean now they know at that point that he is again member from a violent chicago gang he's done time in prison for weapons violations and this is that what nine thirty ten moment that they determined that his license was valid and that segues into the issue of officer safety they had already done a terry pat down they had mr mendez sitting on a curb he no longer posed a danger to them and the good morning my name is bill solomon i represent the high stakes of america and this case mr bush only did not write the briefs in this case but i believe that the briefs actually misconstrue what's in the record appellant's argument is this the officer stopped him because they didn't see a license plate on his vehicle they took him out of the vehicle immediately began to pursue other avenues of investigation and never looked into the registration issue until after they found the gun in the car and after later arrest him when they ran the registration and then number after they ran the number on the serial number on the firearm the record tells a different story the officer clearly testified in the record that testify on three separate occasions in the record that he saw the registration was expired on the face of the registration before he ever went back to the patrol car to run the records check that's something that is blatantly missing from detain him to actually learn any further they knew what they knew the registration was not valid they didn't know whether he had a license or not ok well they came back with a list yes there was a license the sequence of events was that they stopped in for the registration violation he saw the registration was expired on his face and then went back up to the record check the testimony is that he was coming back to inform mr mendez that the registration of expired and at that point the question where you from had already been had mentioned he was in prison and simply asked him why he was in prison and he did ask him why he was in prison he was investigating now a new as the court said yes he was investigating a potential new he had other objective particularized suspicious behavior factors that he was now investigating the question about why are you and you have a gun in the car well that came about first from ask him where you're from and instead of saying i am from chicago i am from los angeles i'm from the lack of kings which is a suspicious answer and self they followed up on that question or he  actually followed up and volunteered not only am i from the latin kings but i spent time in prison and i'm so invested suspect for you probably so as to investigate in that for the line of questioning based on that new reasonable suspicion know he doesn't have weapons on him so he doesn't have access to weapons that's that was the reason for the question why were you in prison to see if he had weapons while the officers testified as judge thomas mentioned there was an officer safety concern here and it is our position that one state once they ask the question where are you from and we see the answer that the the two answers i'm from the latin kings and i've spent time in prison in illinois but that gave them additional reasonable suspicion to follow up on that line of questioning were that the defendant appeared very nervous was one of the factors which problems for us as in the self is not enough he would not make eye contact with the officers he was sweating profusely he was not the registered officers did not have any reason to detain him after the officer who ran the license came back from the car because they were no longer investigating the reason for the stop the registration violation they did  citation issued there was a citation issued for no registration and for no insurance for after the book i mean got him you know i mean probably four hours later right but he states in his place they never even cited it probably didn't appear on the citation because he was in jail  is probably a bench warrant out for the rest for failure to appear at that maybe i don't know but the fact is that  i only wish they had at this point that the shot is valid as well as case made it pretty clear that there is a point in time where officers really have to stop searching because if they've satisfied the purpose for their stop then really there's no longer a prolonged reason for prolonged attention but here they haven't even finished writing the ticket yet well they clearly could have detained him for an additional however long it takes to write  is objectively you know are they entitled to continue the detention and here they clearly could have kept him long enough to write out a ticket and i agree and i and that's why the rent case was also cited but when you have an officer saying i y ran the registration check and it was before the appellant was arrested and then you show their own police reports that that's not true that it was a good half hour after he was arrested then i think there's an issue there a may that matter but it would be nice to know whether the officer was just making a statement that was not correct or whether it was the computer was perhaps not right well in cross examination he was specifically asked that i believe it's page sixty five and sixty six of the excerpts of record and he indicated that that's what he had done and i was reflected in their written police report and we now know that that's just not the case fire don't know and i just my information is it's pretty customary in this part of arizona for the officers when they make a traffic stop like this for failure to have a timely registry for an expired registration to do a that well as defense counsel says this kind of practice it appears that the neighborhood or the kind of neighborhood was taken into account as well as the fact that the client was hispanic and defense counsel made a point of bringing that out