protect the right of people to be secure in their person and their legitimate privacy interest long run if an officer does not get a bonus time to pursue unrelated investigations performs the mission of the traffic stop expeditious certainly doesn't get bonus time when he slow walks tasks that are typically associated with a traffic stop here forty five seconds after making contact the officer decided to resolve the traffic violation with a simple warning but instead of collecting the registration which is the district court explained only a rookie card but failed to do he spent he waited almost three minutes before asking for the registration from the he made contact and over two minutes from when he decided to resolve the case with just a warning instead requesting the paperwork he spent time separating the driver and the passenger so that he could engage in questions that were unrelated to the mission of the minor traffic stop and he'd already decided to resolve the warrant and based on his own timeline he before he even got around to completing the limited information on the warning he engaged in a series of invasive and personal questions such as where gomes was heading and if he was related to his passenger in the car and at that moment the officer extended the seizure beyond the limited mission of the traffic stop that he had already decided to result with a warning and that extended seizure was unlawful because at that moment the officer did not have specific questioning mr gomes asking him where he was going if he was related to his passenger before according to the officer he even began completing the warning ticket so i would contend the those questions because particularly under the facts of this case where the officer had already decided to resolve the issue with just a warning were unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop and involved in unrelated based on his own report all we had at that point was the smell of them aircraft's nerves and fast food wrappers in the car and those two facts combined do not create a reasonable suspicion that go engaged in drug trafficking so i would contend that would be the st moment that there's at least two others and so the nd one would be when the officer made the strategic decision not to ask for the registration officers would ask for the registration at the get go but by the lenny the asking of the rent for the registration the officer then is basically getting to the bank extra time so the thirty four seconds that it took and that let alone the fifty five seconds he's been talking to constantly after the eighteen seconds he spent investigating the actual registration so there is a significant period of time there with the traffic stop  traffic stop because in this particular case not only did the officer decided to resolve the trapping eilish and with just a warning he he did not wait for dispatched to get back to him before wrapping up the traffic high the seizure heard they're putting aside the issue of whether these stories were inconsistent he did have that as the time that the st two extensions occurred which has to do with when he started asking him g the passenger the driver the other related questions which i contend was the st extended seizure there was no issue with with consistent stories and also the additional time with respect to  hansei getting the registration my argument is if he had properly asked for that registration in an expeditious manner he would not have been able to think that time was on say so that that conversation also would not have occurred so if we look at what the officer actually knew according to his own report that rotated any indication of suspicion of drug trafficking it was simply the air freshener and the fast food wrappers so he doesn't get to that the case that the short periods of time that you're talking about involving questions for a number of seconds are sufficiently long that they can be considered an extension of the trav it was your art here we have for more than just a couple of seconds but i would say rodriguez and evans and arrows we look at whether finally if not more minutes that when this traffic stop was extended we have the the unrelated questioning we have the delay of asking for registration which then banged all of the time that it's up to the passenger which was entirely unnecessary and we have the cards in dispatch where the officer here resolve the matter i handing back the warning ticket and the reddest and registration the paperwork the i d all of that was result in good two minutes before dispatch got back to the officer and we have the officers on report where he does not consider the information received from dispatch to be remotely relevant because it's not in his report at all so i think under those facts it's clear the call the di used to artificially extend the traffic stop and was not part of the resolution of the mission of the traffic stop so there's far more than just a couple of questions questions here and a couple of seconds the defense is trying to artificially narrow the scope of questioning and can just by the traffic stop the defense is relying on rodriguez to talk about reasonable suspicion and a completely missing from this analysis is the fact that rodriguez does not ask any questions that are outside of the mission of the traffic stop until after he has already developed reasonable suspicion which is far further along in the stop than what the defense has information that hunting them is we're providing the questions were about their travel plans the government has is where is that where where questions about travel plans have been not because they necessarily contributed to be reasonable suspicion but because they were considered to be part of a traffic stop and specifically a traffic stop that was focused on something like speeding or lack of a license travel plans that they apparently had not communicated on how long they were staying or who they were visiting and they were making a fourteen hour round trip possibly it's in just have a two hour turnaround and come right go right back to riverside and because of the time officer kennedy needed reasonable suspicion to delay the stop and he had at that the stop was  good from his patrol car before it started asking any of these questions related to where they lived where they were going who was related to who and didn't develop the ins questioning had made a decision and his head that based on what he knew at that moment in time a warning was probably in the appropriate thing to do in this case and so he went about gathering information he needed to complete the warning and rodriguez does not question i mean i do your thing was the conflicting stories came out that was definitely reasonable suspicion for the rest that i have trouble with considering the separate questioning of the individuals and these kind of ten general questions after these dockery decided to give them the warning you're out at that that the relevant analysis is whether or not the officer st delayed this and if you did so did he have reasonable suspicion and government position is that none of the questions about that that that officer can be afnan st encounter with gomez delayed the stop because they were relevant to reasonable to their travel plans and therefore reasonably related to the traffic stop there for all of those questions were permissible because officer candy was diligently investigating the traffic stop at that time and and those questions are all permissible  traffic stop because they all can be justified as an investigation into the traffic stop for example where where gomez leds that question where are you headed has been upheld as reasonably relevant to a traffic stop and in several cases that the government has a that the officer needs to know where they're headed because he is looking at an individual but does not have it on him and his reliance on another individual to drive the car anywhere and so all of those questions were related to exactly the facts that were present and see him during the traffic stop that that is not my understanding of the law that the officer was permitted to continue his investigation into the traffic stop to gauge the stand a what was going on with the traffic here we have an officer who learned that gomez had it had a driver's permit and promptly easily within forty seven seconds decided to resolve it with a warning citation it was done investigating the mission the traffic stop it the t why is your mother not with you in the car on this trip to your grandmother multiple questions like that unlimited that would for ten minutes at a time if you could structure of the stop as this officer did that seems inconsistent with this court's observation of traffic stops generally last only a few minutes it made him gorman it's irreconcilable with the th amendment protection the right end of individuals to be secure from the government so arbitrary interference and it would seem to obliterate the right the supreme court recognized and illinois become by is that people have a legitimate expectation to information about their perfectly lawful activities that they remain private such as why your mother's not driving with you to go to your grandmother's this stop was permissibly extended far beyond the midst of a traffic stop the contraband seized was the fruits of the illegal search and should be suppressed thank you thank you