our motion to suppress for three reasons st the trooper sees mr mad when he retained mr mintz driver's license in travel document nd the trooper had no basis to do so and rd the trooper along the seizure in order for the canine to arrive and i'd like to begin my discussion this afternoon with whether the trooper sees mr mack and when this court looks at whether a reasonable person mr med's shoes would have not felt free to leave i two significant factors st being whether the trooper a law enforcement officer retains a travel document or identification and we know that's what happened in this case because the testimony at the adventure hearing as well as the government's position is very clear the trooper saw mr imad waved him over told him that he was working drug interdiction certain asking him questions about where he's going where he's coming from and then he asked him can you please go get your driver's license and rental car green mr mudd then gave the trooper those documents the trooper looked them up on the system made sure that mr knight to not have any outstanding warrants or that band that his license was valid made sure that the rents a card remit also had his name on it and then instead of immediately returning the documents mr imad he retained and it is that act of the trooper as this court held in tyler in court dealt that effect when he had the travel documents and the i d when was the st consent to search given the st consent to search was given after the trooper ran the license and it came back as is clear and then looked at the rental car agreement saw that he was the name on the rental card room it was his name and then he asked only after retaining them holding on to them and he never gave the documents there it happened after but it looks like from the record and correct me if i'm wrong that the consent was given shortly after he ran the eighty and he was holding on to the rental agreement but no indication that he wasn't going to give it back it seems like it all happened very quickly what i'll say your honor is that the record shows that he ran those checks so at the very least he was holding on to them and i believe the record has a timeframe of two to three minutes and what happened in in in cordell were the officers approach somebody in the airport they got their travel documents started questioning them about the trip and then they were holding on to the i d and the ticket and then merely passed the ticket over to their partner that pass can only take a matter of months but in that case the court  that when the officer retain the documents and did not immediately give them back to the defendant a seizure of purred and on top of that your honor we have the additional fact that this circumstance that this court has talked about and th circumstances when you know officer relays to a person that they are suspect or that they are that the officer is conducting an investigation and what this what the district court talked about and what the government argued is that because the officer only said that he's working drug interdiction that that's different then you're a suspect but what this court has held and what this court is stated is that magic words are not necessary and what we look at is based on the officers words and actions whether a reasonable person would have felt as if they are suspect and in this case you have an officer waiting mr met over and immediately telling him i'm working drug interdiction i'd like to ask you some questions can you please explain where you're coming from why is the r v from idaho ok why are you not matching the description let me see some id let me see in the travel documents i run them at that point a reasonable person in mr mudd shoes would understand that yes i am now the subject the target of this officers drug interdiction efforts so we have a seizure so what we have to look at is what basis does this officer have and does those circumstances amount to a reasonable suspicion or probable cause and what we have is they don't and we know they don't because of the officers own testimony he specifically says all i had was a hunch this court has time and time again held a hunch is not reasonable suspicion a hunch is not probable cause and what the district court below did was they looked at certain certain circumstances and they tried to view those in a and what this court said in rodriguez a scholar is that you have to look at additional facts that the officer learned during their investigation that could mitigate or dispel initial suspicions now i'm not conceding that anything the officer observed was warranting of suspicion but even if this court considers that the facts that the officer learned immediately afterward dispelled in mitigated all suspicions st you have the employee who says officer i think these guys are trying to wait you out while immediately after the employee makes this complaint the officer sees mr imad and his passenger leave and then you have the description in the interaction with  mr med is not trying to avoid him he's not being nervous he's not being a vsam he's not swatting he's not doing anything in the interaction with the officer that would make the officer believe a maybe this guy is doing something wrong then you have the officer running the license plate and saying well the rb comes back to an elderly white couple mr met his middle age in middle eastern mr mudd why are you driving this car i bet you don't match the description well the time you officers not he's just sitting in his car and he's not blocking your right he's not blocking the r b a your honor however at that point at all points he had mr and that's driver's license in rental car agreement in illinois it is illegal to drive without your license and you can in a reasonable person is not going to be able to leave without his driver's license so that the never never asked road he never asked for his license no he did not put the defendant in tyler in court i'll never ask for their their documents back either and in those cases the mere retention of those documents whether they asked for them back or not is a seizure that's what court there was more than just a mere holding on to it in court del the one officer at hand at the driver's license and the airline ticket to another officer and then made the statement that they were conducting a narcotics investigation suggesting they were conducting a sophistication of kordell that's a different factual scenario than here i would say that it's comparable to what happened here your honor because as we talked about a little bit earlier the officer identifies himself and says i'm drug interdiction and then immediately starts directing those drug interdiction efforts to mister not in this court has said that it's war either announces that he's conducting a drug investigation or retains the travel doctor well you could indeed at that at the time he told them he was conducting drug investigation that that was still consensual i would disagree your honor because i wasn't that early on at their st encounter i don't reach your briefs as arguing that the seizure occurred entailed the moment that he held on to the the rental agreement yes your honor and i would say that it's a totality of the circumstances we're not arguing that by confused me that you said that either one would satisfy it and you've already conceded here that the one that no i am not i'm saying that when you have an officer identify himself as saying i'm conducting a drug investigation on top law in conjunction with retaining the travel documents a seizure has occurred your honor i see that i'm i have fifteen seconds left i'd like to reserve some time for a bottle but for those reasons and the reasons that we stated  return this case obviously brings us a very interesting concept of windows a consensual encounter more for involved in investing or stop and in this case the and scoundrels really argue that it doesn't work into that stop took about two or three minutes we're saying is that in the two to three minutes that conversation happened he had all the information already after having looked at the license and spoken to mr imad before he even gets those documents it's this court's time and time again suggestion that in instruction like that is not one that would put someone not in the other words that it would also known that they are now under investigation so when you look at tyler and you look at crude oil it's not in  because other than that there's no reason to believe that that person with those docking back in cordell is your honor correctly pointed out they took those documents and then basically forced or forced them to understand that he was in fact the target of that in tyler they took those documents retain them told him that he couldn't leave them with that one step further and basically held him there and told him that until they ran this check he wasn't allowed to leave and he wasn't going anywhere although to greet that it could be an or given the length of time that if he had taken the rental agreement and the license and held onto them for twenty minutes wouldn't that alone be sufficient to turn it into an investigatory stop i think that it gets closer on her but i think that we're still in that area where if ask questions and they both agree to do so so what we have is everyone simply agreeing to continue this encounter the deputy obviously is asking questions and the two individuals that he's asking the questions of don't attempt to leave don't ask to get back on the air or be don't say hey you know we've got to be somewhere what they say is just sure we can answer some questions for you and then mr saddam is put in the back the police car because he's cold not because he's being held against his will this is one of those times simply where the officer was being kind again said that you look at all of these factors not simply one or the other sure the holding of documents can be a specific factor that this court can pinpoint but in this case both the consent and the holding of documents happen simultaneously and there's nothing to suggest that these documents wouldn't be returned that would tell a reasonable person and that's an area that i'm not privy we are not going to go if we turn to whether or not this court initially decides however that even based on the the circumstances and those factors that it does morph into an investigatory scholar then there is reasonable to that the officer was able to obtain before that holding of the documents or the link you hold in of those documents take place because really what we're minutes afterwards and what by that time the officer has reasonable suspicion st of all right right as he makes initial contact when i say mission x contact when he st sees this vehicle he notices that the license plate dirty can't read it so he gets behind that vehicle that vehicle then turns off about half a mile ahead very quickly i mean this is this is a vehicle that as soon as the officer gets behind is taking that exit it's only a half a mile there you know they're on i seventy two it's not thirty mile an hour wind so they're getting off of that ramp he notices that they don't put on their turns he could have pulled them over right then and there for a traffic violation you then follows him to the wolves destination he gets out never match the description of these two nd it's not by a rental company it's owned by private individuals then he finds out when he actually speaks with them warm sorry back up after that happens after runs the fact in the in the testimony comes out and speaks to the officer at his car door and cell and tells him specifically there are these two guys in there they look they're acting really suspicious that keep passing by this window and they keep looking at you specifically i really believe that based on their actions they're trying to wait you out they don't want to come out while you're here now that would give any officer suspicion that would that would force any officer to think there's something more here that that i don't know and so then he pulls up and he asked if they'd like to speak with him they do mr meadows and he finds out something incredibly peculiar and that's that this i tells them that they're going to fight he doesn't say anything about idaho he says that they're traveling from houston to ohio and then when he's pushed it's only after they officer pushes him on that point and says wait a minute license plates from idaho that he says oh well myself my two children and my cousin flew from houston to idaho to rent this vehicle and then drive it all the way to ohio when he's asked why no it's because it's cheap that in and of itself plus all the other factors clearly lend themselves to the understanding that that officer at that time had reasonable suspicion i see i'm out of time your honour's  speaking further with mr moggs and running his driver's license did you ask him for dot dot dot or did you ask him of anything to do i asked him for consent to search the r v that testimony alone shows that he ran it afterwards he got on with the check and then he asked him for consent he did not do this simultaneously and just briefly and that on the issue of the trip it is not the trip itself with no other circumstances of reasonable suspicion the trip itself cannot amount to reasonable suspicion to stop there was no tip about in order to be carrying drugs mr a some a mr ma did not act suspiciously in communicating with that with the trooper there were not a low amount of luggage there was not excessive air fresheners there is nothing other than the trip being odd that indicated that the trip had illicit purposes and for those reasons and the reason so we laid out in our