there are several if you before the court but i would like to concentrate on the denial of the motion to suppress and then the sufficiency of the evidence st we would ask the court to review the factual findings government did not disagree that the district court applied the wrong standard at the motion to suppress hearing and analyzing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and that's to no vote with you is correct we disagree with the the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and by doing so this skewed the interpretation of the evidence and improperly shifted the burden to the defense but if you look at the facts ne this c i had been just just recent prior to having provided this information on the day in question had provided unreliable information on at least five instances then on on the day in question the cause at the agent agent was all i have and tell him that the courier has just called him and the drugs are here in most cases that was the only information he had there was no information regarding the description of the courier the identity of the courier the type of vehicle the courier would be driving that's thing of that nature only that he was in las cruces and that he was  at a gas station off of exit when thirty nine and he was traveling with his family at that at that time he had not told him that he was traveling with his family when the when the c i st called the agent the only information he had was that he was at this gas station and that he was here at the agent goes over to try to cooperate those over to that gas station and vehicles with arizona place agent had not been told that the courier might be driving a vehicle with or the place but he said my because they believed that they were coming out of the big area they would have carried on place that there were multiple cars with arizona placed there and that none of that  stood out to him so he was unable to cooperate the information that the cia had given him about the location of the i then called them back and tells him best the courier has contacted him and has moved locations and give him the additional information that he is traveling with his family and that he is in a hurry because he has to get back to phoenix very quickly so the agent goes to the nd location continues to watch the vehicle he sees a dark gray track come up that contains a female and a young boy and they don't get out of the vehicle but they talk to the individual in the white truck when they're working on a white truck for the purpose of stopping this individual that is watching he what can he direct in that he wants him to make a traffic stop on this individual how can you direct somebody to make a traffic stop on an individual you don't know if that person is  to commit a traffic violation but just based on what he had at that point he asked him to come out and do that then he continues to watch the person he believes is a courier  where his location is so the c i called the courier and tell them that he's up there riley spike him on but the testimony was that it was i had never lost sight of the person who was watching the at the o'reilly's parking lot for about two hours at that time the c i got another phone call saying that the courier had to leave quickly because he had to  transaction and they would have to wait till the next day courier offered to leave the drugs behind with a small down payment and then he would pick up the currency on the way back nothing of that moved it back to albertsons so there was nothing that the agents observed that would indicate that there was this was a direct courier that nothing that he could see then he  mares who has by this time gotten dressed and ready and he's ready to make the traffic stop and he gets behind him and then he east be that like when he's passing the dawn yanek exit where the lane for four seconds and i suppose i did not stop him at that point only stopped him way down the road when he was already heading out of town and he had not seen any other violations and understand that it's well briefed by the parties but what it what if we were to say that that was a valid basis for the stop and where are you in your argument well you're right if that is a valid basis for the st day it's just a wall stop where the police are at the agents think that there's something wrong with that car and they say follow it until you see a violation and pull him over and thank the laws pretty clear that that's the law  elation i believe the facts are very very close to the gregory case where in the gregory case it was a movie track in this case mr cruz was towing a truck behind his vehicle  say that they specifically told him that he was deactivated and he says that they never use that word but they do the agents do cooperate that yes they told him if he takes care of the issue in apache county then they could possibly work together again  that a significant agents also testified it wasn't the evidence also that even when he was working as an agent he wasn't just off on a lark on a frolic doing whatever deals he wanted to do they were always controlled by that the agents were aware of ahead of time and were intimately involved in they were you want to but they but they did send you out of i mean on trips out of town where they were not supervising him at all he would basically go in and come back and report so it was not and if they were they would supervise him but not to the extent that they watched him one hundred percent and he was allowed to twist testimony that on occasion he had bought back the package that was read and he was not supposed to have brought it back and they just told him so and that the agents told him well if we don't know about it it didn't happen and they just allowed the  l to come pick it up camping it up and so there were what testimony that based on their prior encounters there had been circumstances where he was able to act because he was acting in the drug trafficking world and and belief that he was acting under public authority not that he was actually acting under public authority and i believe that everything that was presented regarding all of the forms that was required to find every  year regarding the conditions of being an informant what was completely contradicted by the fact that he was never asked to sign anything at all saying that he was deactivated or that he was no longer an informant because it was very ambiguous to the actual substantive issues beginning with the motion to suppress it is well settled that reasonable suspicion me based on the reports from a credible informant the confidential informant in this who provided information leading to mr cruz's apprehension was a known and trusted informant who was actively working with a just side ample trait of drug trafficking organisation ah this is the argument that this is the i had given in croc information on at least five occasions that drugs were coming in the st thing i'd like to correct is there isn't any testimony to the number of occasions the at least five and that the drug trafficking organization was making these kind of empty assurances that it was going to get that matter and shipped quickly it was saying things like we've said it's going to be on its way and will be there soon if you're going to get it and then when it showed up  does raise some question in the court's mind about the reliability of the information in this case the government doesn't believe that would tip the musical suspicion reasonable suspicion doesn't require absolute certainty and that case the court found that tip was sufficiently reliable for a traffic stop where the informant who provided the tippit giving information leading to drug seizures approximately fifty percent of the informant provided about the drug couriers travel plans his traveling companions and his real time location was information that the apartment got directly from talking to the drug couriers so that  want on i twenty five finally i think the most critical information here giving rise to reasonable suspicion was that it was the way i saw the drug courier it to separate locations and want to screw sis at the stated the standard correctly and new mexico drivers are wired to maintain their length as closely as it will taking into account safety considerations of a particular situation one thing i would like to no reasonable suspicion to automobiles driving down low and one being the law enforcement i get reasonable and suspicion when a car is pulled over and reason information is provided it makes it suspicious that there may be something illegal going on you can detain for a limited period for instance for traffic dog but pulling them over because i think you might have drugs you p question if the concern is about what would happen if there i'm sorry pull the car over only for suspicion of drug trafficking what would be allowed at that point in time and i'm trying to picture what happens next  or a detention or if they're able to dispel that reasonable suspicion or let the person go on their way or they can also ask permission to search right that's correct they could do that as well if that