that this court reversed a lower court's determination and remand this case for a new trial i'd like to begin my argument by first talking about that issue of consent following that i will address three important moments with the first search where mr for the officers did not have probable cause to detain the search mr pettus third after the second search where officers did not have probable cause to arrest now beginning with bishop sent mr pettis consented to the first search an officer subsequently searched him two more times they did not get additional consent for the second or third search consent that search for those two searches but that was considered allowable because the first search was never complete in this case that does not exist officers completed the first search the first full search they did again a second full search after that other third search this is the ominous grove of what would be reasonable under reasonable with regard to consent second into this and by that i'm talking about the other passengers who indicated that he indicated he was going to play something in his but oxon whether or not the dog would be able to detect it how does that play into the progression of things reliability under gates so it's questionable where that establishes probable cause for example if you look at the totality of the circumstances involving those statements the police have no measure as to mr johnson reliability they've never dealt with them before so they can't speak to their accuracy the johnsons also have an incentive to lie mr johnson was the driver he was implicated in the canine alert  i guess i don't understand tell me more about the reliability there's a hearing on the car and the driver of the passenger point the finger at somebody else and they do so with a degree of the yes or the r s alone question down the up the statements made by the johnsons also did not did not indicate that drugs were and going back to the liability  now even if there was probable cause at this point the search perform a second search and they again found no contraband no drugs no well this is the second time that they therefore the search was the arrest was off and any subsequent evidence that was found should be excluded should have been excluded additionally following the third search the pettus and based on what's known to the police at the time you look at the totality of the circumstances you have a probable you have a canine alert that alerted to the passenger or to the driver contraband on his first now it's you can look at it or we can look at it in the end that officers eventually did find drugs on mr pettus first because it's based on what officers knew at that time and at that time there was no particularized probable cause as to mr paddocks all that probable cause would have dissipated following the first search had the second now the argument regarding the defacto rants was that made at t instances where this occurred the police and i have probable cause detain or to arrest mr pettis this was in violation of his mr passes fourth amendment rights officers do not have  to believe that there's drugs look at the vehicle or on an individual within that you know throughout this entire scenario the officers conducted it reasonably calculated step by step search this was in a fashion to reveal so just a slightly review quickly the car was lawfully stopped the defendant was initially searched that was consent or consented to what's a timeline for the decision them to step in from the car they then went to remove the front driver in the front passenger as they were removing those two individuals they stated to the officer that the defendant had his hand up his rear and that the  received information about individuals they ran that information the driver had a license that was revoked and had a recent drug charge then radio became that this was as they were preparing citations they also found there were no warrants or criminal history for the defendant the canine came to the scene alerted the presence of drugs while officers were still writing citations at police the traffic stop was not good for the purpose of traffic stop so there's no constitutional issue regarding  gets the testimony from the passengers that just keeps tightening the probable cause because they find contraband in the car it's also in the air where the defendant was sitting this further i'm not the statement to the calculated step by step approach trying to be the least invasive as possible shows that there was probable cause to search for the family until they found the drugs that they were looking for so in the timeline between the second search and throughout this time the council brought up the issue about the de facto arrest but then there was some conflicting testimony from officers at trial as to when the defendant was hand to address in this argument was the case law behind this council did cite previous fourth district presidents which is fine idea in staley there are two thousand two thousand two case  is that it might be better to have an individual sniff but that's a bad policy and there's danger in there risk threat so we're going to forget about that and go back to the  they only thing that stanley and neuberger opposed is that they did not require a drive dog individually snip again in this case a drugged up initially initially after the officers notify them there was a brief period of time where mr pettus should not do further attempts and then again following the first search they found no contraband so there was again a brief period  and that that the torque from the mission the original stuff the officers had mr pegasus information they had his driver's license address and birth date and his name they could have officers here were determined to find something that's not what a traffic stop supposed it's supposed to be quick and safe to the officer if there is no probable cause they should not continue