morning you don't this is a case that's very unusual when we look at the force amendment violations that happened on july twenty second in the afternoon evident checkpoints all over south texas but they have some hierarchy and the book at sheikha checkpoint is a little post that's supposed to check if some people coming illegally you say several times that the original checkpoint is legitimate in a terry stop check it i think you've essentially conceded that the referral to secondary inspection when they didn't have id was ok so at what time and i mean literally time on a clock how many minutes then or at one time what time on the clock do you believe it went from a proper stop to an improper seizure problem i have yet on is when we had the suppression hearing and then we had the primitive exam initially suppression hearing and then at the trial the same facts were given by the government and if you look violation you stop it you stop some time and then you find something and then there'd be a whole factual issue was this another this was an it's another this in this particular case they were literally at a vested booked and that's only the which was a codefendant in the case which was who was a passenger in the vehicle in the back what you have you have an ok but you would agree that if during it so they have the first stop is to check immigration status you say within ten minutes i should have been able to do that but isn't it true that there is evidence that within that time period the other officers appeared and or were on their way and appeared and were the ones who knew about the drug situation because if during that period when you're looking for immigration let's say that during that time period somebody burst out and said oh we also have a bundle of marijuana in the middle of that you would agree that once reasonable suspicion exists for some other crime they can prolong the detention to examine that other crime right just in general hypothetically not in this case so what evidence is there that they didn't at least collectively among the officers involved have knowledge that would have at least given them reasonable suspicion to prolong the original immigration detention and make it into a drug detention you don't know if you would have used  that have let me in i think they clearly say they also knew about this other tanker and that that wasn't working that had the bundles of marijuana near i mean that was certainly known to david five and the evidence is that the stop was a two forty five so that's within your ten minutes at you're kind of saying is reasonable for them a gratian these guys and know about the drugs show up you know when they would when mr davidson and i've just checked for him to continue his investigation the drugs that they're talking about well it's like a quarter of a mile away from the tank that there's no drugs in the tankers there is no agents understand testified that they do not detain someone if he has no i d coming from the beach to and of itself not having an aide the does not become a probable cause of being illegal you in this country and in fact there was an issue at trial we're going to question is whether allows them to investigate further once they went to secondary was there anything the b agents did to investigate ask wells status because he'd given them information to do make any phone calls or do anything else to to verify what he said or disprove it you know your honor and in fact he told them i could call someone and then bring my i d he told them he was born in the u s they never asked him up that social security he told them what high school he went to in brownsville there was an issue at trial when mr davidson is testifying he said where he didn't speak good enough english and then to answer what is it unusual in brownsville so that people wouldn't have an accent o r for that fluent in english so it by itself would know i think the point there yes sometimes people can be citizens and not speak english well however in his case if he says he was born and raised in the u s typically th that implies something earlier he with english so i think that was his point of view just questioning that not saying one where the other that i agree with that but that was his point of questioning it but i want to get back to the issue of fairly soon after they were at secondary davidson a garcia show up and they have at least collectively knowledge of this tanker and the marijuana bundles and all of that so even if they didn't fully pursue the immigration issue at this point they have reasonable suspicion of the drug issue your argument whether i agree or disagree i understand it let me ask you something that isn't really addressed very much in the briefs which is i don't think you have your client has standing to suppress ask statements and testified at trial what is it that snoo indifferent about what your client said that you're striving to suppress in other words if your client statements were suppressed but ask will still testified in all of that what the only issue in my appellate brief is his own statement and i understand that but you know usually there is some discussion of what it is in the statement that bothers you and i don't see that in your motion to suppress and it's not in your bre so i'm asking specifically what statement did your client give that you think if suppressed would have led to a different outcome a trial your honor all the  stories about what they were going to do with the tank when they're going in fact that what gave the investigation agents to proceed because the story i said initially is completely believe ask a bell then you would believe the statement of your client that it was just a septic or repair or whatever and he's this an unwitting dupe in ask of bell's grand scheme actually your client statement helps to explain an innocent reason why is there if you suppress that then the only story is s q l story unless your client testifies you don't know if my client's story is not compared to it's given the story and the conflicting story a i took if i could make an analogy your honor if i'm planning on robbing a bank and they know this young lady that i was a portion goes real fast and i would tell her would you take that as a bank now maybe i told them plenty of robbing the bank maybe i it this fact would be and i get to the bank and they're not as there's too much law enforcement and i decided let's just go have lunch at that time there was no crime that ever happened can they be charged with robbing the bank now going to that you were planning on robbing the bank using the testimony only of the day very that yeah he told me were going to rob the bank by itself would not have been enough it's always a conflicting story why was he taken to a judge at that point but secondly i don't quite understand how it came about that the brief says something like he he volunteered to the agent i mean did he say i want to i want to talk to those guys if he's being held in a cell or doesn't make sense to me it's not my checkpoints and send them to secondary inspection areas and second agents continued to have authority for the stop as it extended to thirty minutes as they acquired reasonable suspicion of criminal activity both of narcotics and immigration are lying on collective knowledge or do you not think you need to rely on collective knowledge your honor i think collective knowledge is very very helpful in this case i don't think we need to actually yes your honor i would say to some extent we would need to rely on the fact that when agent davidson heard over the radio that there was a drug bust happening at the river that that was like a real event and i think this court's precedents indicate that when agents are given information by other agents that can inform their own responses so it's davidson and garcia that have the drug knowledge if you will either collectively or themselves and they're the ones that  on to develop to extend the original immigration detention as a now reasonable suspicion drug detention yes your honor they are the agents at the stop two at the checkpoint who had knowledge of the narcotics obvious a lot of other agents had knowledge of narcotics activity also i will say that while agent davidson testified below that his primary interest once you're out of the stop was narcotics activity there was still suspicion of possible immigration was wondering does it matter if if we accept that the original stops are immigration they're legitimately sent to secondary as judge or even pointed out no i d you need to check all of that and once in secondary promptly arrive davidson and garcia who have drug reasonable suspicion why isn't the drug reasonable suspicion anough to allow them to continue the detention oh your honor it is the government's position i think it's correct that  this record i didn't make any findings any any reasonable view of the evidence is enough to affirm our position as far as the particular timeline helicopter noticed the drugs that approximately two fifteen pm stop occurred approximately two forty five pm when that pickup truck driven by the defendant and containing his passengers arrived and then davidson and his partner probably arrived somewhere around two fifty two trial that he thought it was about ten to fifteen minutes before davidson arrived so i think it would be reasonable to say that the window in which davidson arrived probably five to fifteen minutes after the stop commenced within that five to fifteen minutes however  the testimony was that agents were still checking on the identification of the individuals at the start of what were the records is that because i didn't see once they referred in the secondary i didn't see that they were making any calls to verify the status of a defendant and his wife presented which is still a valid immigration purpose for the stop and so because that what he says that if they answer questions and produce an i d that you can continue to detain them these are suspicion  stops yes your honor these are the specialist stops however at this point there is also i can't think of a particular stop at a border patrol checkpoint i can think of cases in which terry stops extended for over an hour and this court actually said that they were valid and those are stopped or there's a spin at the at the outset yes your honor however here when this stop commences and there are three individuals in the vehicle with no i d and then there are two individuals in the car you have idea it's a valid use of the border patrol's authority i think under a reasonable view of checking on immigrant a whole justification for martinez for today in the suspicion will stop just to verify immigration status so how do you deal with the fact that salazar said he had no reason to believe believe that these people had any immigration problems your honor but i would i would say the martinez square today also says that he doesn't need reasonable suspicion of an immigration problem at a border protect patrol checkpoint at the border patrol has to stop the car in the first place and to do the initial check yes your honor but you're saying that if that initial check weaves the officer satisfied that there lawfully in the united states then you can continue the detention your hon r i think it's a reasonable view of the evidence that when and that his testimony taken into account with the fact that there were people in the car with no idea that even if he may not have perhaps some particular reason for thinking that they were illegal he's still within his with these people so you're checking out the ones with the i d to check out that the i d s are valid you're saying that's reasonable as part of that original stop and very soon into that we get the drug knowledge people if you will show up the drug knowledge officers and he's already said the ten to fifteen minutes is reasonable for that initial rummaging around and then they show up with their knowledge and then he's challenging that knowledge but that's a separate question it seems to me yes  think that there is testimony in the record that ideas are not always accurate and so even if his testimony i think there's a fair one can fairly read his testimony saying no i don't have a particular reason for thinking that they're illegal but that doesn't necessarily illegally in the country however that doesn't necessarily indicate that he was like utterly convinced that they were fine or that he didn't feel that he had the authority to do due diligence and further confirm that these are so how long does the government think i understand that at some point it's we're trying to figure out where there's potential is evidence of sufficient suspicion of drug trafficking but putting that to the side just an immigration checkpoint what's the government's view of how long that can typically take to investigate the status of those individuals you're on are no cases set an outer deadline i if one wanted to make comparisons to some terry stop cases there are cases indicating that terry stop start to become perhaps less legitimate around the ninety minute mark i don't know that necessarily any case i would want to have been struck down before that and again those are those are cases where suspicion to begin with let me ask you the same thing i asked counsel o you haven't really argued harmless error but i'm just wondering what it is that the assuming that the defendant can't suppress asco bell statement i think that's pretty clear what did his statements add that was leavelle statements that that would make the difference so if we sent it back without the defendant's statements what would be different about the trial your honor i think that harmless error argument could be very would be very strong and why didn't you make it your honor i cannot answer that question because i have to say that it may not be the very first one but it is among the first briefs i've ever seen in a suppression case where no one says anything about what was suppressed just his statement there's no like what was the statement there is no it was we found drugs in the trunk it was i'm used to knowing from the briefs and i've been struggling through this record trying to figure out what it is this is terrible thing the defendant said that needs to be suppressed and his client his attorney couldn't tell me he said is this inconsistent story can you tell s he indicated that he was out with the watering truck with s q l that statement could not be suppressed i think under any view of the law because it was made almost immediately upon arriving at the stop and second when agents davidson  he asked the defendant what was going on the defendant indicated that he was hired to be a driver by ask about he didn't mention johnson's name however he also didn't know how much it was going to pay him he also when asked if he had any knowledge of how to operate the truck or could he pantomime the movements of you know what you would do to operate this he was and unable to do that and so a lot of those statements because they were so vague i think create a lot of suspicion of criminal activity and you know our hope inculpatory however i think for the purposes of harmless error at trial i know that there was an allen charge and so one could think that the jury was having perhaps a little trouble agreeing but the evidence at trial was quite strong they were wondering i mean his statements allow you to have a a an alternate narrative without having to put him on the to convict the defendant as i mean that's necessary so i'm just struggling really because as i said usually the suppression is a confession i did it or it's a bundle of drugs in the trunk and i don't have any trouble understanding why we're trying to suppress this but here it's so big and even this exchange has left me a little bit puzzled but it's fine i mean it is what it is you made the argument you made i'm just so puzzled by all of this your honor i agree i you know came on to this case after it already started i do believe that a harmless error argument could be very strong because we're not talking about the suppression of a confession here the defendant never confessed he went to trial and you're correct that a reasonable jury could not have  convicted the defendant without believing ask about his testimony and there was you know tons of other evidence at trial connecting the defendant to this truck there as testimony from insurance agents who talked about how the defendant helped get the truck insured so there was you know there is a lot of testimony at trial agent stops a vehicle you're correct that comparisons to terry are different because there's no reason all suspicion at the beginning but i think policy wise when when the border patrol is stopping a vehicle and people don't have identification it's a valid for example using extending a terry stop in order to check id and a police computer like in the computer they have in their cruiser is of course illegitimate enforcement activity and i think and i think i mean i asked the questions about time i want i'm saying i think if you look at the recent supreme court case law on terry stops which the analogy are making what really matters is not so much the time there's obviously some point at which things become unreasonable but what really matters is whether what the police are doing during the stop is related to the initial purpose of the stop so when rodriguez a couple years ago the supreme court says suppressed evidence because they said it has to be relayed to the initial reason for the traffic stop or if you develop evidence of drugs it has to be related to a drug investigation you can't just start asking unrelated stuff so that brings me back to before davidson iraq the only evidence you have that the police at secondary that the agents at secondary were doing of further investigation of immigration status was salazar's comments that is his partner was running jacks yes your well actually no your honor i'd say that we also have evidence that salazar was asking  individuals without id questions like you know what was your birthdate and you know sort of biographical information and so that was of secondary that was at secondary yes your honor while there was testimony that he didn't in fact radio to the station yet he was still asking those questions and i think that you know again we're under a very deferential standard of review we only need any reasonable evidence to support the idea that in this case you know particular izing that standard of review has any reasonable view of the evidence support the idea that immigration investigation was ongoing when davidson arrived as davidson had tons of resources fission of all kinds of other stuff that could extend the purpose of the stop i think the answer is yes a reasonable view of the evidence supports that  immigration investigation was ongoing when davidson arrived and i think that's all the government needs here one other thing that i wanted to address is that the defendant or sorry the appellant especially in his  reply brief raises the specter of some sort of unconstitutional de facto iraq during the period between when the individuals were transported to the border patrol station and then when they before when they were formally put under arrest one thing i would i would say there is that even if this court were to determine that they were subject to the equivalent of an arrest when they were transported to the border prostration i think you know under a probable cause standard that the government has probable cause at that point to arrest them anyway so i don't believe that that should factor in the decision and then another you know again i would say that you know if the court doesn't have further questions i'm you is it normal in brownsville for the suppression rulings not to have any reasons why our case law recognizes the situation but i find it very unusual that there's no reasons i mean often there oral reasons i get understand that but in your experience there  to suppress would say ok fine with suppress that i have enough to convict him anyway and that case i said well the whole strategy would be is that we negotiated the or we go to trial and that made him do it is just going on as  do but that was no longer available because the conflicting stories he would give and see the conflicting stories are being given wants davidson arrives and david since the guy with the reasonable drug suspicion again i know you contest that that's another question but it doesn't seem like much he didn't say much until then so it's kind of cause and effect i guess and he never confessed but when you're  was davidson an hour and so that rises and falls on whether those guys had reasonable suspicion of the drug situation which you can test the government says he did judge said they did implicitly is not if he is citizens that wouldn't be legal or i think you can be there are people who are not legally here who own cars houses apartments and all kinds of other things and live here for twenty years and then