are two issues presented in this case the first one concerns a search and seizure question and the second of all a the mistake of fact defense on the first issue mr foldes fourth amendment rights were violated for two reasons first because  of the circumstances test in which courts look at the total time but they also look if all servers were acting diligently and they look to the individual circumstances for each stop and what was required to be done  in that stop are you challenging the actual stuff where he failed to know the use and then once they make the step they had to first deal with the traffic offense before they questioned him about something else is that what you're here if they had first you know work through the traffic violation ask for mr fuld driver's license did whatever investigations necessary for failure to use a turn signal and now before giving him back his driver's and paper for it at that time they engaged in this on a related series of questioning invented clearly the stock would have been prolonged because the purpose of the stuff would have been completed so here the officers are trying to do the exact same thing in the opposite order they shouldn't be allowed to do indirectly what they can do directly so isn't that what some of the cases that have been decided have basically told police officers that once you give the paperwork back once the substance of the stuff is done you better be done so in order to get to the issue there was really in front of them by the way didn't you just get dropped or didn't you just drop off which has ended by returning the paperwork and then they could they could ask these questions and mr philip will if you wanted to could could answer them or he could go about his business so that would be one possibility for what the police officers could have done differently the second relating to the failure to use a trick turn signal so perhaps if one of the officers was asking about every one of the officers running the driver's license of another officer then asked about ask these questions that may have been permissible but that's not what happened here the officers never not one of the officers did anything relating to the actual failure to use a turn signal and therefore there was never doing anything to work towards the completion of the traffic stop and  to complete the purpose of the stop here they're not doing anything related to that purpose so necessarily the they're prolonging the duration of the traffic stop what if this sto occurred because of the feeling that you used the term signal they walk up to the vehicle and sitting on the console is the bigger and open beer do they still have to was just a hunch about some perhaps drug transaction so in that case maybe they could start questioning about the open container about the home but that's not that's not the situation we have here well the that the person you just dropped off had some some police activity in his past well they didn't know that until they started questioning mr vocal about why were they watching at that particular location if they didn't think that spot as it were whoever this person is had some issues well they were actually were watching him for some type of underage drinking parties actually but the officer testified to it clearly mr fogle was engaged in fishing expeditions to their heart's content and this is not a situation that we should be trying to promote because it would be easy would not be it would not be beneficial to both the citizen needs of the police officer because what you're doing as exempl based on this based on the traffic stuff it's a true basis and using that then begin to go on a fishing expedition so we don't we should put on blinders to the fact that the police officers were observing this location for illegal alcohol use the saw spot a known drug dealer being dropped off by this defended who then you know for their purposes forgot to you know conveniently and actually forgot no one is doing anything to walk to the completion of traffic stop in fact officer downing doesn't even know the true reason why doesn't even know why the circle was being stopped to begin with we met doesn't happen it necessarily prolongs allowing it is just a free for all for whatever investigation the police would like would like to go on and moreover the cygnus i for one second the officers but that's not what happened right he said that was yes he says it's but now there is something beyond a reasonable expectation don't you believe our i don't i don't believe that that's a reasonable suspicion but does all they saw it was two people in the vehicle and he says he was giving her right gives an innocent explanation for why he was doing the fact that a person is in the same color as a drug dealer can't be all for all time reasonable suspicion to central bank a car and to look at that person for whatever they want so i don't believe that that was reasonable suspicion even after he said that's what was in the vehicle let's look at  defense in the trial for explicitly refused to consider it the court did so well i mean that's what that's what confuses me about this particular case the trial court spent a lot of time talking about it and saying that the court confused marijuana with a controlled substance or simply said both of them are illegal substances and therefore he should have known he would have been in trouble cocaine was sufficient to make the mistake of fact defense not quite so even if mr fogel really believed it was cocaine that doesn't matter that was of course position and because we have two separate statutes and cannabis is explicitly enough you don't need a chemical analysis you just need to know was this a controlled substance and here there is some evidence that he did not know it was a controlled substance it was illegal that illegal substance yes but as demonstrated by the cooking yes in that case then there would be a missing factor that will not apply because it's all a controlled substance or really you're hanging your hat on here that cannabis is not a controlled substance yes and that's because there are two separate statutes and the illinois legislature in and acting the separate statute for canvassed did so to sort of they say excise it from the general criminal code and so because there is this distinction between recently decided to have people versus brown where the person put on a pair of pants that had something in the pockets and he said watch these were my pants who were my brothers because i didn't know what was in them are you familiar with that one i'm  court reverses conviction our right based on the simpson seizure violation or alternatively remain this case for a new trial where the mistake of seconds the third thinks it's reasonable to suggest to a territorial system then of course based on that that he was on reasonable he sees for entirely too long a period of toilet but it is a traffic stop it we come as a culture to not only traffic stop doesn't need to tell the driver why they necessarily didn't pull over offer some pretext for us to argue about it later on i mean there are a lot of there are a lot of things going on and i think what often gets lost in the shuffle is that those of us who've been let's assume you did use this term so there's no face no traffic violation would it be your position that the police could have stopped him and then questioned him as they did i  between probable cause and investigative stuff whether or not we think the officer might have been wiser and choosing a different course of conduct we're stuck with what he did yes there's abuse or traffic but he were to win the car today and serve a traffic violation that's not contested pull someone over for an insignificant traffic violation in terms that don't mean it's not a dui it's not reckless trying to turn signal and without even asking for a driver's licen doing this are we saying that if you commit a traffic violation everything is now on the table police can ask you about anything and everything the been doing and they could do that for some period time without  before it's as council says until we prolong it on the front cycle ok i don't have to give your driver's license back for good another ten minutes for me because i haven't even asked you for it yet we're just going to talk about all this other stuff that at the moment the defendant was pulled over in the questioning began we are again probably cost territory all right so i don't think i think it's a mistake to say that just because there may have been it doesn't or just off on the issue of drugs that necessarily they the officer who actually does the stuff i think it's radio to do this job or something like that but somebody comes up pretty quickly after them and then somebody in the squad in the taskforce or whatever it is and he starts the questioning does the fact that they are observing this house and they see him near that house dropping the person off does does that and anything i mean just gets its concern that every time a police officer stops us for speeding there are probably be  be i think things can always be quicker and more efficient but sure this could be seen many more tragic stuff and i haven't tried to feels the same way but that's not a basis for saying we're going to as the father suggests distort the in his pocket he wouldn't mind taking the marijuana past but he had no idea that he had a controlled substance in his pocket doesn't that testimony if you get a chance to look at it the probably didn't because i did my to get the record might be  it does not cause anybody to say he shouldn't be he's not responsible for this crime here what its worth anybody that he drove gave them money instead and today oh my goodness i thought he gave me a twenty gallon bill is it's it's it's not the issue of whether or not he is one hundred percent guilty as charged for the crime you know for the specific substance alleged in the charge of this story it's that a defense that i wanted to exploit instead  drug if it was two different controlled substances that argument would be correct but one merges with controlled substance cocaine and cannabis which is regulated in a different statute which is not a controlled substance then the cole remove the substance from his shirt pocket before this officer downing to not ask him can i see what's in your pocket would you mind showing him what's in your pocket he asked him what is that in your pocket mr for failure to use a turn signal and officers throughout their questioning again never say anything about the actual traffic violation and instead they're doing their best to make it seem like this is part of an archives investigation officer says after he says this but isn't drug dealers to tell mr football quote so you probably know why you want to search your car and then again implying that this is not just a normal traffic stop which was the only basis the officers had for stopping this vehicle and instead so by implying that they've got this expansive authority there mr paul is not giving knowing involuntary consent and instead she's simply submitting to this implied i every single case if it's acceptable for more it's been doing here even though there's no reason to do it in every single case i mean i don't see that if if we did this stop the school run i don't see how we're telling