and please the court is the simpson my name is daniel a smith public spenders office and i represent mr cole you haven't in this case should have been suppressed because the officer who initiated the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion to stop mr cole's vehicle car was it within particular number of legs from a forward vehicle and we cited the philips in the read cases which are both applicable illinois authority the government hasn't responded to those arguments with respect to those cases reasonable suspicion on the ground that the court didn't analyze all of the factors in the violation the latter here ok so you don't dispute the court's factual finding that your client was driving too closely behind the car when they merged you in the standard to review your arm particular i don't think that to be fruitful ok thank you so my client of course would also rely on federal authority from the central district of illinois the del rio case that said the government's failure to establish proof that road conditions justified a traffic stop is something that has to be considered in the bell rio suppression and again as i mentioned that's the central district of illinois case so the government doesn't address these cases instead it cites other cases that say in officers believe the car was too close can justify reasonable suspicio but those cases misapprehend the illinois authority that we said in our brief so unless the court has questions on that subject i would like to move on to the nd contention in our brief and that nd contention is that the evidence should be relevant thing to start with and here the following too closely required the officer to stop and make inquiries regarding that but the officer didn't limit his inquiries to that at all and under rodriguez which is the recent fairly recent supreme court of the individual on the outstanding warrants car's registration and proof of insurance those things are necessary questioning a person about their reasons for travel and examining the person through roadside interrogation about other matters is now extending the inquiry beyond what is the mission at hand and moving far afield into matters that are unrelated to the traffic stop those things necessarily prolong the stop and in so far as the government's reliance on l said the critical difference in the case where lewis said evidence should be suppressed was that the officers inquiry did not prolong the traffic stop here we have an additional forty seven minutes where the officer after establishing all that he needed to  address the following too closely violation that's at about five minutes and twenty four seconds in the video the searched the deer geisha goes on for another forty some minutes and then the search is a long period of time of is to on earth evidence of additional criminality i think it's a separate issue from rodriguez but i do have a problem when officers are using the event of an unlawful traffic stop to now proceed into questioning of this type as long as it didn't extend the stop are you saying that robbery case has it's abrogated that i think it's a problem when they're doing this because they are of course prompting responses and they're not supposed to be doing that they're not recognize the posing authority on this we just think that this is an abuse of process that is leading to bad results here and so i would have thought mr gillis the it least as i look at this case i focus on the  questioning that went on on the video before they moved from the roadside to the gas station were at least by my count about five of the st seven or eight minutes of the stop are devoted time this was not that this did prolonged stop well he's questioning him on these collateral matters that is a clean break between the two cases are by far that analysis would resolve any conflict between these if there is any and so that is a significant problem argue and as your honor mentioned that is questioning that goes to something you may be intimating that is questioning the ghost to something the on the mission of the traffic stop i mean i then but of course the un availability of the canine unit doesn't mean that my client can be detained until they can locate a dog it's all factors back into rodriguez not the reasonable duration of the traps in your view when at any point did the trooper get a reasonable suspicion of drug activity such that a search was justified i don't dispute that he ever had it judge i think that he had suspicions but i don't think they're reasonable suspicions i think in particular when you're looking at the government's brief and they're focused on a potpourri of things like rappers and price that are paid for the be the volkswagen and all these things that aren't even relevant to the d a determination to see a laundry list both from the government and from the district court about things that are what we would call innocent explanations or minor inconsistencies under sokolow the supreme court case that says those things shouldn't justify  that's correct so as far as the analysis goes the judge we're supposed to be looking at the totality of the circumstances right we've got things that impact the officer's credibility and the bait wait nature of these things where they're trying to galvanize facts subsequent to the search and so the pulsating abdomen is a very curious example the officers assertion training and experience with out any proof of training experience that this court has criticized in the davis case that was a search warrant case but it's the same sort of consideration here there was not a always many reasonable suspicion we need to look at that to tell you circumstances not just any solution i really don't think we need to spend much time on the initial stop like traffic stop is justified if an officer after license and registration is where you headed and this court said in lewis that said officers across the country would be surprised if we countenance the characterization of this basic routine question irrelevant to a traffic stop and that decision came after the supreme court's decision in rodriguez yes rodriguez stands for the proposition that that kind of questioning not relevant to the traffic infraction can't  cannot unreasonably extend the stop but here it didn't as as you're listening to on the video as you're listening to trooper chapman's very calm i think i think it's a stretch to call this an role it's not as though you have you know five free minutes of interrogation that's not the right review standard that's and what i don't see here is evidence that the question that he was making independent progress on the on the warning while he was doing all those questions by the roadside actually around i think he was as you listen to the  road he did not learn the nature of the arrest until they had gotten to the gas station when i ask you if we go back a little bit in time mr simpson to  ninety seven nd sixty back in one thousand nine hundred that the mere lawful operation of a motor vehicle should not be considered suspicious activity absent extraordinary circumstances or extraordinary contemporaneous sin objective standard and if i could just summarize some of the facts that we're talking about here and again as trooper chapman started asking mr cole at his travel plans and ask him about the fact that he had a driver's license from one state and registration from another state and so forth chapman's reasonable suspicion melted incrementally so let's let's imagine we are in here you stop a car with a license plate from halfway across the country the driver has numerous food wrappers suggesting a long trip but it's only luggage it's a backpack he gives you registration and license from two different states the registration has an address in los angeles which you know is a major source city for illegal drugs are there any cities that are not major source of these for illegal drugs i don't know your hon but i'm sure that i think i think it's very recognized that was angela certainly being near and being a very large city and being near the border with with south america is is a major source for your legal drugs and so you asked the driver to sit in in the passenger seat of the police cruiser and when he sits down he keeps his right leg outside the car in the door open even though it's late june in central illinois you ask the driver about his registration and license being from two different states he doesn't really spot directly when you ask that question he mention were different states across the country you know answering the question california maryland new york in arizona in a minute later he mentions another one florida you ask the driver he started on this trip and he says colorado springs each time he answers one of your questions you shifting around in the seat a minute later you ask about the origin of his history and again the answer is in direct confusing me go ahead and quote that even though my time is short he says the origin i was in cincinnati i stopped in cincinnati for a couple of days work related stop in cincinnati coming from maryland and stopped in colorado at the springs and met some friends at the springs visited a friend in outside of boulder and came back and all of that traveling he took only about four days or five days and again you see at some point on your computer this person has been arrested three times in three different states you see that the registration was issued only three days ago and the driver admits he didn't get the registration himself the brain got it wor recitation at what point during the traffic stop on the side of the road do you think the officer had reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity your honor i think it's hard to tell  precise point during the eight minutes i think certainly by the time by the end of that eight minute period he had reasonable suspicion i think that's that's the most solid thing we can say  so just a few points about the move to the gas station they waited for about twenty eight minutes and if i could just point out in my foot if i could just go on for you then i think you know that the officer tried to minimize that w t seeking canine units from three different local law enforcement agencies starting with the closest police police in springfield before finally getting the canine unit from the state police facility in plenty and daring that that wait at the gas station for twenty eight minutes the reasonable suspicion to continue to detain him further increased with things like burning about that he had drug related arrests money laundering use of weapon in a drug offense you see that the insurance on the votes wagon had been purchased only four days earlier gave a current residence address that was different from the address on the on the cars brand new registration so again this is a growing strengthening chain would urge the court to look at to look at the transcript on that that's that's part of a two page description a to play age answer by by trooper chapman about why he had reasonable suspicion it's at the end of a something isn't in the report is strong argument for impeachment then affects credibility in a cast of bad light everything else the officer asserts that is not good here also i'm not certain that reasonable suspicion increase but i know that the delay increased as they waited at the gas station for this can you nine to arrive and officers that they know they're going to search this guy in anybody else they could be making simultaneous arrangements or lots of law enforcement officers they can make a when they were pulled over on the side of the road that the officers checking of criminal history and checking to see if there were any outstanding warrants is covered under part of the mission of the traffic violation part of that is honor the things that are listed in rodriguez are part of the mission the things that are not mentioned rodriguez are the court's pretty careful institution in writing opinions saying the things that are permissible and things are when they leave things out i would say that under the existing authority in rodriguez they're not included in courts like land garros from the th circuit and recognized effectively overruling precedent is the decision in rodriguez that now limits it cabins when an officer can ask and so if you have authority  circuit that may be in counterpoise with the likes of rodriguez what rodriguez says can be done we're not going to reconcile those cases with rodriguez like when darrow in other than what he say has and needs to be done in respect to graham if i just may close with this we started warres which is a seven circuit case that said that his suspicion isn't reasonable if it allows police to stop substantial portions of the driving public that same principle as in grandma it's more recent but i would say then connect the dots and the recent authority and the early authority from the th circuit would suggest this is not a reasonable stop here and we ask the court to reach that same conclusion and order the evidence be suppressed at the very least there should be an additional evidentiary hearing if