in oklahoma he then decides he could have stopped the traffic stop right there because there's no more reason for a traffic stop but instead he actually stays in his car two to three minutes longer to prepare a consent to search form setting the stage for the next leg of this detention then he goes to the other officer hands them back a license and the other officer dutch over  because you answer the questions and so you don't answering the questions because that's what we don't reason all motorists to and at that moment he was in a continuing detention he was not free to leave and furthermore at this moment is what you can get at any car wash when you go there they put it in your car it stinks that your car and it only takes one we all know that there then there's this nervousness several factors of nervousness then he has the story which the officer says the suspicious but we actually don't know in this case i'm like we knew in other cases that it was such a short trip we don't know when he started all we know is he staying for one day and returning in other cases it's suspicious when you don't have anything your car here is suspicious when you do have something in your car that actually matches the explanation that you've given so then he asked you know what's the name of the casino at state line that you want to that's a question that sort of beyond the scope of the questioning so right there but let's go on to that consent because maybe that's where your concern is more and so here we have early early on in the invest in stuff setting the stage for that consent prolonging the detention in order to effectuate that consent based on their training techniques which is they do it they have in hand before they even know that this person is going to stick around to answer more questions than but what happens after that is everything but no and that's a hard situation to be in and i think that even if the court were to find that he was free to leave when he was asked the question will you answer more questions that as these this questioning goes on and on and then having this report she about you know do you want to why do you want to search can you look at not search no i want to search can i take my belongings out of the car no i want to search in the car that at that point during that conversation he's no longer free to leave because here he sort of trying to demure the question and he's not being successful and at that point it just sort of escalates and he doesn't give in and so when until the officer tells him that stonewalling if that's not know if stonewalling isn't know to a regular citizen who is supposedly free to leave and i don't know what it is because it is hard to say no to police officer and this is this close to no as i've never suppress the factual findings made by the lower court with not clearly erroneous and there was reasonable suspicion to believe that mr ringold was engaged in narcotics trafficking the trooper ringgold also voluntarily consented to the search and well he consented it was during a consensual encounter because he had been told we're all done here on two occasions he'd been issued a warning and he actually acknowledged that he knew there were none by thanking the officer and turning  starting walk back to the car the officer reinitiated his contact in the way prescribed by mendenhall by approaching him actually lost it in approaching but asking him can i ask you some questions he responded affirmatively and wrinkle came back to the officer that's when the consensual encounter occurred at the same time the officer had reasonable suspicion that the lower court properly found it was not clearly erroneous for him to do so that at that at that time the officers knew that ringold had been stopped six months prior with a secret compartment in a truck with six hundred sixty thousand dollars of cash that's clearly a suggestion that he's involved in criminal activity the trooper also saw th g those two factors alone justify reasonable suspicion but the trooper here had more he mr ringold was nervous mr wriggles had a crazy story and again based on the trooper in the lower courts knowledge of the area of las vegas it seems ridiculous for someone to come all the way from missouri to come to las vegas to help this nice move and then drive past las vegas forty miles after making such a long trip to get something to eat at a burger king and in fact mr ringold said the casino you went to visit we couldn't remember the name even though we went so far out of his way to get there was close to another fact that the trooper would know it's really suspicious because casino never close based on all the fifteenth factors plus the six hundred thousand dollars the trooper did have reasonable suspicion the consent was also voluntary and the lower court was not clearly an erroneous and finding self here mr ringold did ask a lot of questions about the consent but just like in soriano that went to show he understood what he was doing the lower court found that it was not coercive and th transcript kind of gives i believe this cordon of view of what the testimony of true production over was like he used terms like him hawing and stonewalling and even how he described his first initiation of the conversation was hi my name's trooper dutch permission to search the car the mr ringold responded not with the no but with a limited yes you can look into the car the trooper explained the scope of the search you wanted not just to look he was actually i wanted to search again the mingled responded with a question on a prior occasion my car had been damaged by police was searching it this isn't a no this is a concern the trooper responded that i would respect your property again mr ringold responded mr sister told me never to consent to a search of the car and that has two facts that are important one it was not a no he was relaying advice from the sister he didn't say so i'm saying no and second it's joe's that this person mr ringold knew he had the right to say no because a sister a cop told him so finally the officer because he wasn't sure whether mr rendell was going to make up his mind at all signal to do with reaction if which he was entitled to do both based on todhunter based on the recent supreme court case in illinois  and the words used i'm going to have a dog conduct of three years and it was only at that point that wrinkled said yes and the lower court admitted that that was somewhat concerning but here the trooper right away then wanted to make sure that he understood he had a right to say no to production of which said you have a fourth of them at right to say no to production of a provided them with the could be written consent to search for the says you have a right to refuse and even after the search the panel has no further questions i submit the rest of my time so thank you sailor that and listing the help of the dog search is the code for when there is a refusal so that may be tantamount in this situation which is how it played out here that when you have a refusal you get the help of the jug to break next year argument nationwide mutual