good morning with i'm not matthew brissenden i represent mr gomes on this appeal with the court's permission i want to start out with the issue of the duration of the stop and whether or not it ran afoul of the supreme court's recent decision in was spent doing precisely that fact the district court recognized the mr gomes was questioned about subjects which are unrelated to his purported traffic violations and essentially that those that questioning did extend or prolong the the answer to it the answer is this case is distinguishable from robbery gains in the sense that we have argued that the government wage the good faith exception by not raising in the district court in rodriguez there was no issue of waiver because the the issue wasn't right when it was before the deal was a raised in rodriguez either it was a it wasn't raised in rodriguez because it wasn't right obviously when the case was in the district court in rodriguez rodriguez the supreme court case wasn't law and so there was no basis for the government to raise a good faith exception in the district court unlike this case where rodriguez was good law the government certainly could have argued at the time in the cases before the district court that the good faith exception applies whether it was a strategic decision or or simply an oversight the government's position was consistently not that the good faith exception applies but that the officers conduct was lawful an appropriate here and so i cited to a number of circuit cases the wording from the first circuit and lera from the snow was by the time of the second hearing took place rodriguez was already logged in your crush on a defense counsel although he's advancing exact argument that's covered by rodriguez somehow neglects to cite rodriguez itself i think you know how can you blame the government a different guy had guts but so how is that not reasonable suspicion that perhaps the car sharing is large duffel bag came out of a hotel in which you stopped only for a few minutes after switching cars at another location that was a drug location have seen you know what i'm getting sense we might disagree about the subject but obviously my position is that it was not reasonable so ok you would agree that it's a mix question and you do that you are no let me say one thing about reasonable suspicion and certainly your honor is a little suspicious that your honor is focusing not on the events which occurred leading up to the stop which is one thing what troubles me in part about a lot of the government's argument is that the government focuses in particular events that occurred later in the stop for instance this notion that mr gomez changed his narrative about whether he was staying in the hotel or why he was there and i'm concerned about that reasoning in particular because i don't think you can justify an extended extending the stop based upon the information that comes out once you've extended to stop so i certainly would would argue that that that reasoning regarding reasonable suspicion is is suspect in this case and scorching of the law in that it is sort of a boot my comments initially on the duration of the stop is that seems to be the primary focus of my colleague and my colleague and his papers in before the court appears to focus on the supreme court's decision not yours significantly from the facts are not really stated differently the stock in this case complied with the mandate of rodriguez investigators in this case did not troll on the sto harrison but also cited longer intervals of turban for two minutes and hernandez seventeen minutes do you think those three cases including harrison survive rodriguez and what was it she responsible for that this record is possible for making findings about being able to pull on the stock certainly it is just wesley points out there probably was a lot there for those findings to be made by the district court but they were those two questions what was  your first question your honor to the extent that harrison stands for the premise that a stop can be prolonged beyond the time that the officers need a reason we should have needed to conduct the traffic stop the process to traffic stop and there's no reasonable suspicion of illegal activity or another independent basis for the stop then i believe the rodriguez case after due to decision harrison and the other decisions that your honor alluded to in this case issues or information relevant in the comics investigation were developed during the course or simultaneous with the traffic stop moreover and possibly more importantly at the inception of the stop the officers had specific bill facts to provide reasonable suspicion to believe that mr gomes was involved in illegal activity in the district were have to make that the district court did not make that specific finding your honor however the record there's ample evidence in the record uncon additional findings and understandably may not have given the recent c of rodriguez and that neither the government or the defendant had raised rodriguez in his briefing because as i understand it the police were filed when judge burns had the case previously and they were updated so in other words judge burton says the case she retires case is fair for the chief judge hall and had she holds the suppression hearing again but no new briefing so it's it's understandable that she she didn't address it in great detail she did however cite it for the proposition and and then to support her finding that the inquiries by the officers regarding heroin trafficking activities did not measurably pro after rodriguez was issued as a result it wasn't raised by defense and it wasn't dressed by the government if it had been addressed and raised and quite likely the government would have  hall took the case and the rodriguez decision came down and i believe april of last year and then judge sauls decision was and i believe in june or july of last years a couple of months after the his decision no further briefing was requested by the parties and quite frankly it just wasn't on the party's radar we very likely should have briefed that both parties should have addressed it so we could have fleshed out issues under rodriguez before judge all but unfortunately we didn't and once again judge that heightened escalated the officer's reasonable suspicion was developed at the very onset of the stop while the routine traffic stop process was was being pursued by the officer was the first thing that  specifically when detective campbell approached the vehicle he testified that mr golems appeared nervous he was visibly shaking he would look at officer campbell and he kept looking forward he kept his car running he had his hands on the steering wheel detective campbell had to ask him to time to turn off the vehicle then during the initial questioning where detective campbell testified he was asking routine questions to find out what or at the very least that he asked some routine questions one of which was where are you coming from and the defendant falsely said i was coming from home well detective campbell knew that the defendant had was not coming from hard for the spot actually  bond direction from a hotel the very hotel where detective campbell observed some highly suspicious activity knowing full well that hotels are commonly used by her only traffickers once you cross a light once you co and shut the vehicle up he again asked me why he had been stopped as campbell's testimony i told him that we were conducted an investigation into bad heroin as well as far as within the city are for it in say we we're at a couple  eighty four you're going to us all right so what's the purpose of your honor i think the purpose of that is the text of campbell was was was jointly investigating to matters the motor vehicle violation and the narcotics investigation and he was doing simultaneously during the course of the of the motor vehicle violation and yes he certainly asked those questions right at the onset i believe you also testified he asked what he characterized as more routine traffic questions including one of them being are you coming from and at each point during the motor vehicle stop his suspicions escalated to the point that there are reasonable suspicion when the probable cause during the course in a motor vehicle he asked where it was coming from since it was under surveillance the whole time twofold i think detective campbell characteristic characterize as a routine question that he would typically aster and want to be able stop and i also think the the other reason to ask the question is quite frankly he believes that mr gomes was involved in illegal riis but obviously my position yours your honour's of trying to articulate is that there was no reasonable suspicion and one things i want to emphasize here is that palm affection waiting to stop if you listen to the tapes the same the whole time we've got the brother we're following the brother moment find out it's not the person they thought they were following at all if you don't think the activity performed by john doe if it's performed by john doe is is not suspicious i think when you have a person with no criminal criminal history going to a hotel i mean and i think it's a mix question of fact and law but that may be the case or what will be it may be the case i mean obviously the district court implicitly found