good afternoon john dallas on behalf of the defendant john hayes intending to reserve two minutes of my time for the rebuttal this three issues raised in my brief two of them are fourth amendment issues cowtown so i had a problem with them a couple of things and when we focused on my problems the first one is the delay while taking the evidence most favorably to hasty air all the police are standing around doing nothing waiting for the drug dog to arrive was two to three minutes he's had driven eighty five miles an hour he's gone from the far left lane to the far right lane to make and exit in order to evade the police and then he run a red light you do those things you can expect to be stopped for speeding improper lane change and running a red light and he was pretextual but that's ok under r at two to three minutes the question the constitutional question as to whether the stop was unduly prolonging and gosh i can't imagine getting a traffic ticket less than two or three minutes ordinarily you get a speeding ticket even without all the excitement of hazes driving and it takes anywhere from five or ten minutes to twenty minutes i think that constitutionally important principles not the length of the delay but whether the delay whether the stop was extended beyond the purpose of the stop i don't know if that's right under mueller versus our decision and chavez phelan's well and whether the stock was quote prolonged beyond the time close quote that needed for the reason for the stop for a long beyond suggest to me that it does have to do with duration and what's more it has to be after the end of the time it was needed for the reason for the stop i guess my point is that there's not any specific amount of time a generation that's important the duration has to be case that i just quoted from two of the mahler verses and you know the supreme court case that's where we had said no they couldn't hold their hand cuffs for two or three hours when she was totally on involved and they were doing a search did because they wanted to make it look like a routine traffic stop is a matter whether it's pretext or all used to matter in some circuits and then the supreme court in rennes that it doesn't matter it doesn't matter if it's pretext but it doesn't matter and that the stop the duration has to be tailored to the length of time needed for the stuff i don't see where to look the limitation is in the case law you've mentioned a case i can find the language quoted for you but i think that the leg i read it as meaning the opposite of what you say and it seemed to me that since there's no way in the world they could send him on his way at three run a red light person eighty five miles an hour and have gone from the far left to the far right now exited in less than three minutes it really didn't matter what they were doing or why they were doing it but in this case a traffic stop all they was go to at the car say was stopping you for these traffic violations we're going to write you a ticket they look around see if there's any drugs in the car you must be a much more restrained driver than i at least three minutes but in this case i don't think you know i don't think the principle should be what the standard traffic stop should the duration should last it should be what was needed for the traffic stuff in this case and th minutes for the other officers and then the other officer says we want we want it we're going to wait here until it dog arrives at that point when he asked the question the duration of the stop and the traffic purposes was under there was no need to continue to hold them at that point i mean you can drive that way and folks say an actor get it go go ahead and enjoy yourself we didn't find any drugs well at that point it was they meanwhile he's going to give the guy a ticket and it's oh you must appear in court ticket because the driving was so gracious takes about twenty minutes during the twenty minutes the dog comes sniff the car there's so and they follow up from that and they also find that dope instead of being beef before the traffic tickets during the traffic ticket procedure but the traffic ticket procedure takes twenty minutes this case the evidence was there that the defense wanted to proffer was that someone else who was there at the house who had access to the drugs that were found in a storage locker and then mr hayes for three this case this court's cases are clear that the defense has a right to bring in evidence to create any kind of reasonable doubt even if it's somewhat speculative as long as it's relevant and armstrong and cross we all stay there fundamental standards of relevance to require the admission of testimony that tends to prove another person did it in this case it would have been very powerful evidence that john rob defendant regarding such as fillet one rule for zero three those cases actually had some connection that the person had actually been in the same car been in a position to commit the offense in this case there's no evidence that other than this nephew was around the house every once in a while that he was never in the storage locker that he was ever in the car anything like that there were the connection is very attenuated moreover under the rules of evidence for example i mean specifically role for a fo a conformity of an instance not allowed what they were seeking to do is say this now if you had cocaine on another occasion of your earlier it was powder not crack another state level bob but yet you know that makes it likely that on september eighteenth two thousand and two in conformity with that behavior he put some crack in the garage or in the car and that's not permissible it's also in this case on a fairly prejudicial specifically the other half rule for zero three because in this case it would have created a very false misleading impression since the defendant himself you need to go as far as it's being investable i thought we were just reviewing the district pretext it's completely a pretext there given that the fact that the government or the agents are allowed to commit to conduct excuse me pretext stops means that they're the whole thing is a pretense they are allowed to make a pretense of going through the usual steps they are allowed so they get they get how much three times well under them you know they get ten minutes five minutes twenty minutes well the mean of this versus mueller case does say prolonged beyond this case i think the court doesn't really need to reach that because the evidence here is that the whole time this is going on officer francoise is on the radio so regardless of some objective you know three minutes four minutes time frame the officer is still on the radio not just checking the things that it's already i would smithies totally entitled to do because it is again a pretext he's entitled to check you can take all the normal steps he would take to traffic stop what are those normal instance was also informing the dispatcher where the officers were so that the department would know where its people were and also informing officers that they actually had a suspect attained so that they knew where they were he was verifying the driver's license and standing around after they made a stop they were just standing around next to the cars doing nothing and i thought that's what the district court credited his version of what the two officers were doing i don't i don't read the record that way at and they framed this issue as asking questions you're not allowed to ask as and i thought they specifically raised the timing issue in their in their motion in the supplemental brief after the evidentiary hearing did not say anything about the time right either in his oral ruling or in his written order the one thing he did say orally is that it was a pretty short traffic stop which he got tickets to ye there in that case they asked him do you have any drugs in the car and i think the question was after they had issued in the ticket right and that's the primary difference here because there was no ticket issued the traffic stop and its regular steps were still argument is well as i said before our position is right i think the cases are so that you can go through the normal steps that would normally be required to do a normal traffic stop for a multiple violations of the type that are in this record and and  there are other example that was given to other counsel if you were to bring a dog during that timeframe that's fair i my understanding is that's fair game as well here in the interview that was they asked a question but as long as it's within a timeframe that steps of the normal traffic s still being conducted there's nothing to dispute that the stop is still going on and intervening event is permissible i don't know that the court is you know what if they really didn't do anything other than wait for them for the they knew that yes they knew that but it's our position that's ok that's why they do these stops because they want to identify people get their names get their addresses learn things the prior traffic stop to get traffic thought they saw all those hundreds of empty one policeman says that the other one says we're standing around doing nothing waiting for the d n a and i'm thinking why don't they just give him a ticket no reason this guy should skate for going eighty five in the lane change and running a red light when other people get july thirty first they did a traffic stop they made an observation nothing more came of it they gave him a ticket for the carpool lane the reason not to bother with the ticket is they think they've got something that will give them so much more time that it's worth the paper work limited whereas it looks to me like there's a credibility finding generally except that the context was the whole hearing was about everything else about not on the declarations and the whole hearing was about the statement about the dog and there's no finding against officer friend saw for example there's officer nearing an eye and  i'm specially to air in an officer way since he had two very different things to say about this dog statement and that's what everybody was talking about there was nobody was talking about how long it was prolonged beyond the normal steps i'm just concerned i understand what you're saying but  i know what your position is it just doesn't seem to me that they that that's what the order of the court stands there's just briefly your honor first of all that both officers well since ski and friend closest stated that there was no need to run a warrant in this case and they were just doing it just just to make it look like a traffic stop that's an ex record one thirteen one fourteen one thirty nine the one forty but that's a pretext to why can't they just do this well because because if you if you look at for example purpose of this in this case it wasn't necessary to effectuate purpose of the stop they didn't have to call in for warrants already they already knew i didn't have it once let me ask you you know one of the things i think franois testified to was that he was difficulties and that was that's a record i don't think that's a problem but i don't that's not the way the record is right here the way the record is he calls it and he's calling for warrants waiting then the check then the prosecutor  also called in to report where you were he says yes but the main purpose of it was to go through asking for a warrant check to make it look like a routine traffic stop and it's and i know that protection all stops are permitted  takes that way above and beyond what the supreme court has allowed and makes makes it and reasonable in the fourth amendment i'm trying to find what you just cited from chavez the second sentence starting with the constitutionality of the constitutionality of an investigative attention is judge under the framework of stablished in cherry v ohio requiring that the scope investigate the tension must i think that the court has previously found that armstrong delay on crosbie that it was an abuse of discretion and if the avalanche is relevant and would tend to show that another person is guilty of a crime and i asked that