persons martinez docket seventeen dashboard one thirty one please proceed when you're ready may please the court my name is james and we're jones on the attorney for the appellant dion martinez requested reserve five minutes of rebuttal time a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity he then engaged one of the shooters and typically in the motor vehicle context that comes with a traffic violation whether it's fair to signal sufficient period of time or changing lanes without signaling any one of those criminal activities cannot give the op an officer an opportunity to stop a vehicle and here we had seventy eight in a seventy five i realized the police departments or the sheriff was her the trooper the policy was we're not going to give tickets per seventy eight in a seventy five but it's still a legal violation is not the seventy in the seventy five would be in legal violation of the trooper at the hearing testified  felt that they were going the speed limit he did not pull him over based on seventy eight and seventy five but it was his opinion that they were within the speed limit that within the reason for the stop whether the seventy eight miles an hour come from  believe that may have been his estimate that they were going between seventy five and seventy eight but he made it clear that that was not the the purpose for the stop fact and as you look at the totality the circumstances should continue to consider seventy eight miles an hour he said that they're going to speed limit that was made clear in the hearing that he felt they were going the speed limit what he did consider and what caused his suspicion to pull them over was that there was a bank robbery in winslow arizona and in that as a result in the investigation i think property there was no description of the bank robber no description of a get away car no leads to go off of except for two strange incidents somewhere in one's war zone a near the bank somebody saw a couple of individuals running one with a checkered shirt one with  but half an hour earlier in flagstaff arizona somebody saw an individual somewhere near a bank in flagstaff arizona with a bud light hat and a checkered shirt kind of the mirror of you just a bank you was the same testimony was that they were not seen running from the bank but they were in the vicinity of the bank in an alley near the bank that they saw two individuals running the strange activity in flagstaff is not described at all other than just being unusual activity and well it was enough that someone reported it and that tied to the like had a life in the in the flagstaff incident that was seventy five miles away from the winslow incident  somebody said that they saw unusual activity and that the person involved in that activity that went undescribed was in a white cadillac but they also made it clear the white cadillac was  not seen engaged in or part of criminal activity just unusual or suspicious activity in the standard isn't enough you can pull someone over he has a reasonable suspicion of suspicious activity and that would be akin to the hunch that the cases talk about but instead it requires a reason the suspicion of criminal activity and in both cases both in winslow and in flagstaff the individual seen were engaged in suspicious or unusual activity not directly linked to criminal activity there was no white cadillac waiting outside the bank and winslow that this bit off and then they found a car that looks similar enough to our trooper phillips was driving and am i correct that in the eleven o'clock it takes an hour by testimony to get from flagstaff to winslow which means it's seventy five miles because the speed limit is constant seventy five miles between flagstaff and winslow which means that those individuals would have had to before that was were they wrong that the airline had been involved in an arizona bank robbery i know of course probably curious they told him they pulled him over because of this suspicion of the suspicious activity in the car smell of marijuana which led to further investigation they found marijuana they found evidence in disha that links back to the utah bank robbery they were charged with the drug crime but they were also description of the bank robber there was no description of the bank robber or a car or anything else all they had was a description of suspicious activity outside the back outside of all things frankly that weren't directly linked to the bank robbery at the time both places did not rise to criminal activities far as having a nexus to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity such that they could stop their car even if the car was unusual even if they had a reasonable suspicion of suspicious activity in that they might more particular that it was suspicious activity pertaining to the the bank or looking like it was going to be a bank robbery participant or anything like that nothing specific all they had was that this bishop this suspicious activity happened near court has any other questions i can ask another wasn't reserve my time for any weight that should be given when there's other problems in the case but putting them aside for a minute is there any weight that should be given to stop this white ca very unusual in this part of the country well if it's if driving in a cadillac a white cadillac that is unusual has translations of suspicious activity in the standard is reasonable suspicion suspicious activity then yes they can stop that but since the cadillac by the officers test where the troopers test really was that there was no link to the cadillac to any criminal activity the market would be no even if the collection usual the fact that it's unusual doesn't when you get to criminal same car that showed up in winslow and lifestyle well she doesn't think the car didn't show up in winslow he had a reasonable suspicion that the car that he saw was the one that was unusually linked to flagstaff in flagstaff and he was probably right that the current involved in the unusual activity in flagstaff was the car that he pulled over but there was no link or an insufficient link to criminal sensitivity nothing not enough dots were connected to say that criminal activities or he could have pulled the car seen a traffic violation and then pulled it over but what the reason he pulled the car over was based on suspicious activity not believe that these people were involved and robbing and intending to rob the bank and we have no information about what the suspicious activity was other than it was near a bank and in flagstaff but nothing to show that there was any criminal activity plax if there's no five person right so we i mean this is a vertical collective knowledge doctoring where we have an officer saying i saw a person casing out a bank there's just very general information going over the radio waves to the sox are saying hey we saw this too and we saw this tune it be on the lookout for this without really connecting the dots to any criminal activity just suspicious activity was there something you and i i'm not finding it now but was there something in a plate mention somewhere a license plate i saw i saw the word plate i want to say it was in one of the reports of activity but then there was nothing else yes they got a plate on the white cadillac in flagstaff because the license plate and the officer trooper phillips testified that he told in the place that he saw on the cadillac that he was behind to see if that was the same one but the response did not come back before he pulled them over into the st yesterday suspicion yes it ended up being the same place but he didn't know that at the time twelve twenty seven pm at about mile post three twenty five on i forty in arizona he possessed the following information based on two dispatches he had received the first one was the eleven forty one am dispatch the second was the twelve thirteen pm dispatch from the eleven forty one am dispatch he knew that at approximately some time a little before eleven forty one a bank in winslow had been  one subject of robbery was described as a male wearing fairly unique by the light another possible male subject was seen what was described as wearing a blue and white checkered shirt and blue jeans and was seen running east from the bank in an alley now from the twelve thirteen pm dispatch trooper phillips received what he's testified was additional updated information about the bank robbery suspects now this information came from sergeant wants me who was at the scene of the flagstaff bank flagstaff traveling eastbound that's in the direction of winslow after it was involved earlier that morning in suspicious activity near a wells fargo bank a native american we don't know who reported cold in the suspicious i know there's nothing in the records or that your are a native american male wearing a light blue checkered hoodie there's that checkered again there's that color blue and  what about mr jones's point that the flag suspicious activity occurs as reported to occur the trooper understands that occurred at eleven o'clock the bank robbery is called an adolescent forty one and are seventy five miles between those two communities therefore just doing the math in my head assuming that while they get out of the bank at the main run down the alley they would have been driving one hundred fifty miles an hour between those two communities decide undermine reasonable suspicion and wise in that i don't think so your honor for reasons i think i think the first one is that these times and distances are approximate in fact there's nothing in the record about the true distance between flagstaff and winslow but it is not seventy five miles an hour i'm sorry it is not seventy five miles the second is one would expect or it's reasonable to the miles per hour of it but what where did where did the evidence come in that it was like seventy five miles between flagstaff it was low it's extrapolating from the trooper's testimony that it takes that at the speed limit which is seventy five miles an hour although it wasn't in the record it takes an hour to get there so it's an estimate your are and that's part of my argument as to why while at first blush troubling a little bit it doesn't really affect the reasonable suspicion in this case because it's it's certainly not impossible one may not travel at some sort of star trek in work to get to from flagstaff to winslow number two it's reasonable to infer that someone who is involved in suspicious activity and there was a call about it might have wanted to get as quickly out of winslow to flagstaff as possible when you stop there because that word infer here to me seems to be what this case is all about inference upon inference upon inference turn out to be a lot of really good inferences and a really good hunch it seems like but i'm good lunch isn't good enough and there's a lot of inference as one as you just said is about the time that based on when the flagstaff suspicious activity occurred based on when the winds were robbery may have occurred yes you know an hour later he might be where this officer was there's lots of inference is there this isn't like a typical getaway car case where you spot the white cadillac that is you know connected with the robbery which we don't have here you know a couple miles from there this is miles and miles and miles later so you make an inference about time and then you make a really big inference that the suspicious activity that we don't know who reported or exactly what the activity was where one individual is driving a car is the same activity that occurred forty minutes later their ballots where we have no car and two people you make a big inference there and then you eventually stop somebody basically because  driving a white cadillac sixty miles later if there's a lot of inference is there's my point why isn't that just a really good hunch on the part of this officer because i think you can look at it as as this court is held you can't look at it in a kind of divide and conquer analysis when you're dealing with reasonable suspicion you have to look at the totality of the circumstances and there were so many commonalities between the flagstaff suspicious activity incident by a bank city that might have a that has a wells fargo bank that was the other hunch that maybe that's where he was headed she was headed well but we have by the life hat that's common to both he wasn't married the ultimately that's my other question it has to be particularized suspicion what was particularized here the the really what you really have is a description of two individuals that robbed this bank that weren't driving a vehicle they were running and they were wearing particular clothing that ultimately has nothing to do with the stop an hour later it's about the white cadillac on a highway interstate highway in arizona  he or she simply must possess a minimal level of objective justification for making the fact and that's a trooper phillips did he he didn't look it the winch low stub i'm sorry the flagstaff suspicious activity in isolation he didn't look at the flagstaff bank robbery in isolation he took the collective his own collective knowledge of all the facts and when he did that car he had a number of reasons well let's talk about stopping the car i mean there's one more problem we haven't thought about yet was that there was a female driving it right that that's correct there's no evidence at all in  female running and we've got also kind of a troubling fact that that that he kind of changed his view whether he thought he saw a female or a male driver kind of for convenience purposes i don't know where that comes from or how much weight to give this puts a little bit of a bad taste in in this whole thing well regarding the the fact that it was a female was there any evidence of any female involved running in any way no your honor so isn't that a problem for you know your honor because i believe it was a reasonable mistake a fact given that there's a chilling when somebody says no i mean in winslow there was no i mean it was noted windows and windows all they were seeing people running in the street and and there was nobody said that there was a woman running in winslow no it was it and now and so when he came even to the car he said that i thought it was regionally he correctly i mean originally said it was a man because he thought that would fit the story but then changed his mind when he saw a woman exit in the car so does that how does that play into it that when he was writing out his report he thought the fact that the driver was female based on what actually what the driver actually was the gender of the driver not what he actually thought in fact the district him but he explained later that he was reporting what he eventually found yes you are and the district court did extend except that but i guess my question is what what does it matter i mean how is that particularized that through dark teams glass he thought maybe as he was driving seventy five miles an hour alongside of a car he thought he might have seen the outlines of a mayoral native american face well it was what is that how is that particularized well it's a male it's not unreasonable looking at the picture that one would think that through the sense of windows it's it's a male and this one about that through the dark tinted windows what about that picture would identify it as a native american male that that cadillacs within three miles of each other on that interstate is your position the trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop each of them i would think that in that situation depending on at the boat within the and distance parameters if he saw one of them with what he reasonable belief to be a native american now with glasses he could have stopped that one but he didn't he says he saw that rear unit cadillac and i mean the basis for the spot was the fact that it was a white cadillac as described it was rare and unique in this court has held a number of times that the uniqueness of a car at a certain place or location can be taken into consideration the totality of services or any case where we've described that it was sixty miles away from the it from the actual event and wasn't described as being at the actual event they were describ running from that event the robbery as there anything close to this in terms of the connection being made here with respect to the uni idea that this is the getaway vehicle so it's a unique getaway vehicle a cadillac well not a cadillac but this court has held back traffic patterns including the uniqueness of a vehicle or its rarity at a particular location in fact a spokesman saying that this is a location and interstate highway is a location in arizona yes and it's a cadillac being driven on an interstate highway in arizona yes you know and it's an hour away from the bank robbery where no one saw a white cadillac correct about four forty one minutes or forty one  unique are interesting phrases i mean you might do that to a car that has got a big bud light sign on the top of it or flames written on the side or you know or something really unusual but it's pretty hard to say from the record did anybody ask the trooper was that radar no no and the trooper did say and it's on page seven i'm sorry page nineteen of the transcript he believed it was going this is a quote approximately seventy miles an hour but there's no indication whether that was a visual or by radar right and he was and remember he was if i had to guess i think because he was going in the opposite direction and this thing was unexpected and he was going in the opportune opposite direction towards the town of holbrook because he assumed his testimony was there's another so he's going in the opposite direction so i would think it was an approximate is that when he i guess i thought he had pulled up alongside him when he said he could see through the mine he was on the other side of the interstate yes ron he was on the other side of the interstate going towards holbrook to intercept the potential bank robbery he sees a white cadillac coming eastbound he makes a huge turn follows it for me it took him about two minutes i think to catch up with it and that's when he pulled half minutes please appreciate it we're both time or the counsel for the united states in his briefing as well as an argument stated that they relayed descriptions of the bank robbery banks in the alley near a bank or somewhere near macon flagstaff we don't even have details on that but i just want to clarify that the court what we're working with is people described doing suspicious behavior not directly linked to the bank but near the bank and i would argue that that's just not enough for reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior to ogle the running from the city of the bank after the bank robbery occurred they were said to be running but were they running away from the bank was that clarify it's my understanding that they were seen running in an alley near the bank maybe running towards the bank instead of away from the bank that you know is just not clear i don't know they're running toward the bank i don't know about that there's no evidence one way or the other whether they're running away or toward or sideways to it or anything correct i want to go square fishing points any other questions from the court and i'll submit thank you