days so we've we argued that this court should address that issue as far as the issue of whether the stock was a reason people lost we would certainly can see after the past his timeframe when he testified and he did so at least on this issue honestly he said he couldn't run a background check on williams you couldn't check the license he did on his very quickly basically in thirty seconds very seconds or less an could have written her ticket without while you're out of the car again as we said he he he wastes time by pulling her out of the are engaging in all these different background checks and it takes no process fifteen minutes to do these things at which point license place and because it was around a sticker on the back of the car now we cited the ortiz case in our brief and is directly on point here if there is reasonable suspicion is that somebody out of drug related activity and because he really believed that these were drug traffickers well reason for a lot he was he was honest with the trial court about what he was doing he was he was very honest and he was very straightforward and what he did in terms of the time duration when went well  law that every site indicates that when there is some sort of minor traffic violation that the investigation should focus on they have and can only go suspicion i believe there are that this more properly can consider that the duration reasonable suspicion arguments i believe first because i know since the days that this leaves open the door of their brief approximately eight pages of argument for were dedicated to the situation of duration and reasonable suspicion in the in the state's brief in addition there are cases that in that indicate that this is something that you can properly consider even versus our own people versus sims and finally the situation room here today is a little bit unusual because the judge in the trial court indicated that he would all the ocean of passion suppressed based on a jacket but he's going to refrain from ruling on a yeshu of rishon reasonable suspicion but if he did will he would rule against mr ben ami this and this as well and i several argument and i would be here in front of you today proximately a year from now on something that currently is already brief and i'm right here in front i think that's a pretty strong argument but even further this court is particularly well poised to be able to make this ruling is i believe because of what is in the record and specifically what is in the record about the the background search that was conducted i don't depending on what the person's history is in that and i don't think they're authorized to be the off police or authorized to be able to sit there and just continue looking through background information weapons happen to the these people and then the way the st but what's not allowed is to treat the protectionists trust up as a drug investigation you you in essence have to win this is what i argued in front of the trial where you have to run into the information that gives rise to reasonable suspicion  for example of a vote of the the door of the car and you smell marijuana you didn't try to seek out information but all conducting your normal business the officer came across and here that's not what happened here the officer treated this as a drug interdiction and because of that we're in a situation in which the officer has mixed up a lot of the stuff that's necessary for the stop with a lot of stuff that's not necessary for this stuff and specifically if we refer to people versus bobbing in people versus bucket we had an officer who was very about how long it took to accomplish what he was trying to look at and because of that this is this court was able to very easily determine how long able to conduct a drug and method a drug investigation would be to reward him for not diligently pursuing what he's supposed to meet punishing the officer involved be honest in just attempting to get that stopped up i'm because that i think that clearly it doesn't matter what the total this is a violation of years it's irrelevant and i don't it's a relevant but the judge's ruling here change the fact that this took ten minutes and it was a search that was conducted search on these people's information that was