your honour's reasonable suspicion requires basically just that we have to have a rational inference and we have to have an objective basis for the suspicion the district court and the government agent this case office on the fact that these two cars were supposedly writing in tandem and there is case law that says if the cars are right in tandem that that is something that an officer can take into consideration but that was not objective that was not reasonable we have case law that says what it is to be riding in tandem and these two cars were clearly not riding in tandem we have united states versus socolow that said they were close in proximity to each other in this case we have fifteen to twenty car lengths behind separating each other in so close we have that the occupant stiffened when the border patrol  them we don't have is a factual matter judge where is a clearer well judge it's not reasonable that's the clear air is because of the fact that you know one officer can just say what i thought they were you know smoking marijuana when they're not smoking anything i mean we obviously listen stick to the facts sure why is the observation of the car one car following the other without any basis reason because of the fact judge that they're not writing in tandem there's no you say that and i'm sure you're convinced so now tell me what the basis is for saying the judge was clearly error and abuse of discretion that means if implausible illogical or no facts in the record from which reasonable person of communication between the two cars which we see in other cases that the court has said they've been right in tandem with this close to an above border checkpoint that had been closed because of often a site for smugglers because smugglers have networks of communication and they know when one of these above border checkpoints is no longer operative or temporarily well judge that's what he said but then when he was asked he can't point to any kind of studies or anything that actually proves that that's true but you have got to have a study he has experience he's been doing it for a day for days seems to me that there's more than driving in tandem here though that is one of the facts judge hawkins as talked about the checkpoint was close both came from a border town the v crossed the border there were about of it an hour earlier both were driving along a known smuggling route when smuggling believed to be more likely both had a t e c s alert in a law enforcement computer database both were registered recently had tactic used by smugglers the defendants vehicle had an amber light suggesting it was a commercial vehicle but nothing else t defendant had been arrested three months earlier for alien smuggling and the training experience and knowledge of the agent all of those facts supporting the decision of the district court and where on abus he does that's your best argument will judge everything else is is something that is generalized to every person who's right on that road there's only one way to get from the border town of douglas up to that area well i said there's really you have to take highway one ninety one which is where the checkpoint was there's no other alternate route once you get past the checkpoint there's two ways you can go but the problem comes and you can argue about the facts all you want that really doesn't end abuse of discretion i have to look at the circumstances in the context of a border stop that are one characteristics of the area which they did the proximity of the border which they did the usual patterns of traffic in time of day which they did the previous alien hour drug smuggling in the area to behave you're the driver the appearance of behavior of passengers which has nothing to do with it the model in the appearance of the vehicle which they did in the officer experience that's garcia bear and that's exactly what the district court looked at we don't judge but if you're going to look at just those facts i mean just that's what  site i understand says they'd have any players and then who's riding along highway one ninety one that day because of the fact the checkpoint is down is subject to being searched which is not reasonable you have to look at the objective particular lie suspicion discretion well judge i mean i've made a lot of jury arguments in my time some i won some i lost because the jury believed some and they didn't believe others that seems to me be the exact same argument you're giving me well you know i've got point fair and the jury didn't believe me and i ought to get a belief well that's not good and doesn't take away abuse of discretion given the primary thing that he's looking at is the fact that they're supposedly right in tandem that's what makes him i think it's one of the primary because that's what makes them go after that's what makes him go after these cars is the tandem ok checked currently a check of the license plate indicated some suspicion one of the vehicles had a hit on it for drug smuggling in the past the vehicle itself in my case mr dragos case mr derives ohad a hit for previous alien smuggling three weeks or three months earlier so his car didn't but he did and in the other case it was the car not the driver and one in sequence to those occur well he first is that the agent first got behind the s u v the jeep s u v and found out that that car had a hit that is correct and i see over two minutes if i could i'd like to reserve that thank you  coming from douglas they were both newly registered which was a factor significant to him they both had techs hurts related to the alerts we really related to smuggling activity and they were traveling fifteen to one carling would be incredible you can say factually but the that there are ten car links that's bad it's not it's i'm not saying it's from traffic standpoint it's not bad but it does support an inference that they travelling together considering how sparsely travel that road is at that point you know you do wonder in some of these cases and we see a lot of them where there's a predicate for search and you often want to ask an agent sometimes are driving too fast or suspicious sometimes or driving too slow it's suspicious you get the impression that the circumstances are sort of made to interpret this suspicious well in this case i have been five car distance between them you had as i mentioned all the other factors that would contribute to the reasonable conclusion that they would try to go and get it registered car is suspicious but one that had been registered for two months would not be the agent testif knew that the registered owner of the vehicle had an arrest for yeah that's correct one of your other was a passenger i still think knowing that the registered owner of the vehicle had an arrest for an alien smuggling combined with every other factor  circumstances in this case were made to interpret what the officer wanted to interpret the officer and that's the reason why i say it's an object to be reasonable the officers trying to figure out a way to try to pull a car over it's not objective le reasonable to think that because they're fifteen to twenty car lengths behind each other that they're there right in tandem it's just not objective lee reasonable the fact is there's no communication between the actual drivers that he sees that's not objective we reasonable we're basically saying that an officer can pull somebody over just because they're driving on highway one ninety one because it comes from a border town which we know that is not these cars have one distinguishing feature you've been arrested not convicted but arrested for anything i mean to do with alien smuggling or drugs that's enough that means they can pull him over that's not the fourth amendment because the fact that i mean there wasn't actually a conviction on either of these cars we don't know where these hits came from we know we're not disputing the fact that mr droz zero had been arrested previously for smuggling in one illegal alien we're not disputing that but we have no idea about the other car we have no idea if that was a car that was seized in a forfeiture we have no idea where that hit came from and so again we can't say the just because there's a hit on a car that means that the