in this case the stop was unlawfully extended because instead of making any diligent effort to to prosecute a real traffic stop these officers spent their entire time performing three consecutive warrants checks interspersed with interrogation of the driver and all the passengers and not only that but the officer admitted that he was never trying to issue i never actually tried to charge a traffic violation and when he was asked well why don't you go ahead and write the ticket after you check the warrants the st time i never could get any to hear an answer out of him the only one who did provide any coherent answer was the nd officer who just said well i was leaving it up to the other officer to write the ticket so we never could getting any clear explanation for this is the issue that went to trial right yes wrong so what why should we just are the trial  basic reason why we should disturb the trial verdict is because we are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because essentially all the facts are undisputed and due to the fact that basically every fact in the case was undisputed no reasonable juror could have concluded that this traffic stop was not extended i say that i used the phrase consecutive record checks in this case there were three consecutive records checks this wasn't like you know where you go out you commit crimes in three different counties and then your lawyer manages to get you would work out some a group you know senate store you go to prison you serve time on all three sentences at the same time these were not concurrent records checks they were consecutive records checks and so essentially what you had in this traffic stop was five different stages stage one at the beginning which was about at eleven started bet eleven fifty two am the officer came up told him you know what the stop was about started the warrants check on the st on the driver and also the front passenger and then stage t when i mean it took him about nine minutes to run or it took about seven minutes to run the initial warrant check we said that's fine everything after that we asked him why did you write a ticket after that no explanation was ever given and so basically everything as a matter of law yes your honor but there are cases that support the cases that support that are basically the law basically doesn't support running a secondary check i would say at all there was a  case from this circuit in two thousand and ten united states versus smith where the court did very you know conclusive very briefly just say that that was that they could  run that they could run that they could run a check on the passenger and i would say that the law now as a united states versus rodrigues two thousand and fifteen in that case the supreme court specifically said that the purpose of the warrants check is to check the warrants on the driver and not only did they say that but they gave a reason why they said it's to enforce the traffic code if the driver has ignored citations in the past then if you just give another citation you're not enforcing the traffic at b the passengers claim then it wouldn't be the driver's car i would say it would be all of their claim because under i think britain versus california just the overall stop seizes all of the occupants of the car but i would just submit we're not primarily talking about we're not primarily talking about whether it was ok to scan the passengers at all because at this in this case you don't even really have to get to that the problem we're not even faulting the officer for in the st warrants check running the front passenger's warrants at the same time because you do it at the same time and we can't really prove that that added any time to the stop the problem comes in where it where he started doing these consecutive checks if you say that  was state's two was he got the driver out for interrogation and interrogated him stage three about thirteen or fourteen minutes then he starts interrogating the other passengers of the car stage for seventeen minutes and that's where he begins checking for checks are necessary then you need to go and start those at the beginning otherwise you're not prosecuting a traffic stop diligently and if pass if you're going to check passengers at all i submit that's not even really allowed but if you're going to do it at all you've got to start at the beginning otherwise you're not prosecuting a traffic stop diligently for your class self the particular area in tennessee where they from way off so they were from florida your honor and they were so they they about driver's licenses the thing is another reason why doesn't even really make sense to check passengers for warrants as are to run their driver's licenses his passengers aren't driving you're not going to give them a speeding ticket and frankly they video there there absolutely is a question about what the video shows i mean the dog handler said that the dog alerts by sitting down the video i think i submit it plainly does not show the dog sitting down at all on the left side of the car which is where the handler said he sat down i think he said he also so even though you can't see the video on the other side of the car because the handler said he saw it on the left and the video goes much show it right then your position is that there was no alert right but then the other thing on that issue is i mean the main point we're arguing with that issue is that even if the dog somehow alerted that alert seem to get spent you know on i forget exactly how much time it was but they spent ten to twenty minutes debating about whether the whether they had any basis to search that well as essentially acknowledging that they didn't really think there were drugs in the car but trying to figure out whether they any legal grounds to search it in spite of that what do you what is your best argument for damages beyond a mere invasion of privacy basically our argument on that is that the judge did not address the the real legal issue which is supposed to be proximate cause i don't believe his his oral ruling which was the only really he had that really addressed the issue i don't think even use the phrase proximate cause but that the th amendment is not just concerned with privacy it's also concerned with liberty but the imprison you're claiming from the pro stop where you go you draw a chain from the not even an illegal search right just a prolonged ation of the stop you get to the you get to the incarceration yes you are because the whole purpose when you look at proximate cause the main quest question for proximate cause is foreseeability it was perfectly foreseeability that they that these officers would wind up arresting people because that was the whole purpose of what they were doing that's that's the whole purpose of interdiction plus that division of the ten highway patrol was to poll people over for it isn't the contraband isn't that why your client is incarcerated correct i mean it's not the invasion of the privacy per se absolutely you're right it's absolutely not just that invasion of the privacy but again where the th amendment isn't just concerned about privacy it's concerned about freedom and you best come songs mandate mendez is a very good one and i think i also cited hamilton county powers versus hamilton county public defender commission which talks about the fact that if there's no judge you know making a bad basically a judge's bad ruling and judges illegal ruling the judge cuts off the chain of causation we didn't have it here in towns versus city in new york the defense's case basically talks about the same issue where they basically said that if there's no judge coming up cutting off the chain of causation then the problem then then that then the the later seizure is approximately caused by the violation so that's why they had to create another secondary basis based just on policy concerns which we oppose but is there anything in the record or to your knowledge about why there was such a long delay in such a long pretrial income incarceration  no your honor i think we just we just articulated to the judge in my oral argument below that what happened was the defendants you know there's two different stages of prosecution in tennessee you don't get discovery at the st stage then you have to wait several months for that to you know for the grain jury to indict him for you to get into court on that then you have to wait a little while for the da to give you discovery and so once that once they get discovery then they filed a motion you'll have your about all time thank good morning amanda jordan here today on behalf of the at the least jason bowles and don clark the judgment of the district court should be affirmed for two reasons st there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendants did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop in this case and secondly the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the defendants with regard to the search of the vehicle was proper is plaintiff's failed to point to any legal authority to show that a dog's alert to the outside of the vehicle but not the inside would fail to provide probable cause for the search and the defendant also contin the should the court affirm the judgment of the district court there's no reason to even address the rd issue which is whether or not the district court abused its discretion in limiting plaintiff's evidence on damages what's your best case of the damages he said his was meant that you have a good cation the spring order of the courts have been i think in this case your honor the town's case that we cited although it is a nd circuit case is the best case with regard to the damages and even relying on mendez which reminds us all that you have to look at the particular claim that is being raised and the damages that proximately flow from that claim in our argument is a since the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for the search of the vehicle and that their damages the arrest and incarceration arises from the search i think under towns it still says no but like i said i wasn't able to find an actual six circuit case on point for the issue so we might have to fall back to mendez and the term and whether or not they are able to show there an implication in the that there is a broad damages kind of concept because the court suggests that the and that the that that maybe these were the people that got shot right after the but they don't have the excessive force claim but there seems to be an implication that they might be able to recover damages for getting shot so we from the on lawful entry right correct your honor and they were finding that if they could show that that unlawful injury was the proximate cause of the unlawful injury was the proximate cause of the shooting injuries that they sustained then yes they would be entitled to those damages right but even though there was an intervening event with the person pulling a gun and then getting shot in the excessive force and all that i mean you're willing to accept a chain of causation that goes back that far i was unable to find a case to say other was other than the tales case that says that for searches and seizures that it is limited directly to the invasion of privacy and you can't get damages for your subsequent arrest and incarceration as the result of officers uncovering incriminating evidence during the search so i would fall back on the town's would be i thought there were other cases other than towns that supported your position and i wrong about towns is the main one that i can think right now  and aren't there some cases perhaps district court cases trying out of new mexico that talks about all injury suffered as a consequence of the deprivation that the defendant's actions during the traffic stop did not unreadably prolong the duration of that stop and there was sufficient evidence submitted it trial to support that finding did you make the argument that you had independent reasonable suspicion stuck with the argument that their actions were not on reasonable but the district court did find that in addition to there being sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict in this case that the district court found that there would also be sufficient evidence to support that able to go back and look at in viewing all the evidence in this case under  review the testimony at trial explained lead so you didn't argue in opposition to their rule fifty you did not pray i did not know because the trial was focused solely on whether it was an on going to judge in his rule fifty rulin during a traffic stop to question a driver so after that in c i c came back negative trooper bowles went ahead and question the driver testimony at trial established that this questioning lasted approximately five minutes and that he asked the standard questions that he would ask in any traffic stop such as where you're going the purpose of your trip the day twenty minutes before they called block b l i'm saying is that have you refer to it as block wasn't there or twenty minute white before block was call so even you know the obvious question being even if you could hour had a right to run it through a nd when it takes twenty identify the rear passengers in the vehicle with him and was unable the identify them there but nickname he didn't know their legal names correct it wasn't able to point to the specifics of their travel plans i think at that point the officer made the decision that will maybe i do need to run this additional block chick and in all honesty you're only asking for five minutes then where do the extra fifteen minutes come in before they initiated the block investigation am i missing something on the timing and i'm not following your question that there were that day why did twenty minutes before calling block and your statement is that there were so it's a smaller window there it was twenty minutes from when that in c i s c came back negative but it was really just at like seven minutes from when they actually called block after that about purchasing a length of time probable cause to actually search the vehicles and then they did with the dog and he didn't alert and they said sorry fellow officer that he didn't alert and thumbs up to the people in the car we're done here why isn't that a discipline of probable cause under our boeing case in this case the dogs search on the inside of the vehicle was stopped prematurely because they don't get distracted by the same which so cause and allow a jury to tell you whether the the dogs search inside the vehicle was sufficient we go back to the dogs alert to the outside of the vehicle is what gave probable cause for the search and that there was no ind an and then the dog went into the vehicle director and did what three or four minutes of searching they are never alerted and then of course stop to have snack but the issue this is a car it's not like there's a whole house someone starching the dog goes in does not a lark the raft that whole search so then that's the end of that probable cause that authorized the dog to get in and yet we have the dog coming out we have delays we have further discussions we have the officers calling and in that the officers are saying to one another i'm sorry i didn't alert say into the people inside the car everything's good we're done here effectively then they go back and have another conversation and then they do a manual search where's the probable cause for that manual start the probable causes the dogs alert to the outside of the vehicle and following failure of another search based on that probable cause how does that comport with boeing or or are davis case that the failure of a dog sniffing dog to alert to a car dispel suspicion of drug possession in this case your honor i just fall back on that the dog did not do a complete search of the inside of the vehicle so in would you can say that since that is in fact a jury question that this case should go back down for a jury to make that determination no your honor because we covered it wasn't even covered at the trial since the defendants were granted qualified immunity for the search of the vehicle so the only issue of trial was whether or not the defendant's actions from the initial stop until when the dog alerted to the vehicle was an unreasonable delay and i would also submit that in the defendant's motion for summary judgment though when we were discussing the reliability of the stop the defendants a minute evidence to show that the drug dog that was used in this particular case was certified through the national narcotic detector dog association and that the dog certifications were current at the time of this particular stop we also submitted evidence that the dog had not been known to give any false alerts before in the past and summary judgment stage plaintiffs were unable to put forth any evidence that rebut it the dog's certification or his performance in the field and therefore in that issue was not raised and i think therefore the plaintiffs have waived that argument well that you couldn't reach that because that was decided as a matter of law before trial yes you can you address the argument of damages for pretrial incarceration why would that not be a forseeable proximately caused damage by  the constitutional violation of an as i stated earlier i think those damages could be the result of the search and it's the fact that the defendants were granted qualified immunity with regard to the search is why we're saying that the plaintiffs are not entitled to those damage is we don't flows from the actual you couldn't get damages a common law from an illegal search for the prosecution for the prosecution and resulting incarceration right i mean this is never been something that was recognized as a as even a common law element of damage was it i think that's correct so i'm not sure why you would even conce to just really securely proximate cause analysis i think if you can show that the damages were approximately caused by that but why is it the why isn't the case that the contraband is the is what causes the problem of incarceration and then prosecution i mean if you're illegally search and you have something you know you don't have something you're damaged because your privacy is invaded and if you have something illegal you're damaged because your privacy was invaded but in either case or damage equal your privacy interest is damaged equally so why is it that the happenstance of you having contraband then ups the damages i mean maybe that's a question for your opponent too but i'm curious about that i would think it would just cut off at the at the at the search when i think of it was a malicious prosecution claim that they were raising then malicious prosecution does get to any town says that you're only entitle to damages relating to that invasion of privacy and not any damages arising from any arrest know regarding the whether you could get damages for this sort of thing a common law i would suspect not but that's only because section nine hundred and eighty three dollars is a statute and it deals specifically with constitutional torts and not with common law but the supreme court has s common law when you're looking at the damages i mean that's mendez says that every right and so you would look at for example just different common law principles in terms of like the restatement nd of torts on what constitutes a superseding cause that submit you should definitely look at that sort of common law if your honour's were inclined to do so but in terms of common law i mean there is no common law tort for violating the th amendment that's why we made section one hundred and eighty three so that's submit that's the answer to that with regarding whether you should get additional protection because you've committed a crime or something along those lines i thought train made a pretty good argument on that point which is that just because you get charged with with something and held in jail doesn't even necessarily mean you did commit a crime and in fact if you are convicted of committing a crime usually you can even sue over it because it's it's primitive so for a hypothetical a dead body or something like that yes your honor and i would say the seriousness of the crime has nothing to do with the th with the th amendment applies to the th amendment applies to all crimes no matter how serious or minor because it's the one i understand that for sure for but i'm not sure that you could get damages for possession of something that's clearly a go at incarceration after that well i think that's the problem that you really have in doing constitutional law claims is if you're representing someone who's been charged with a crime or maybe even someone who's committed a crime jurors aren't sympathetic to you judges aren't sympathetic to you and townes the judges basically came right out and said that they said well we agree that there you know in addition to the probable cause analysis we're going to make a separate test just to protect the police on policy grounds because the police are the good guys and we don't think that criminals need to profit off of  illegal searches and what is your best case and basis for arguing that that's just plain incorrect it's incorrect now especially because of mendez which was decided i think eighteen years later something like that so does man das go that far or does it really just restate the general rule of towards mendez to some extent restates but also just clarifies and nails down the general rule which is that you look at proximate cause you don't look at what type what specific you don't set special rules for specific types of th amendment claims you don't set policy rationales to limit damages so mendez i would say really does de bunked that that it really does de bucktown she could maybe say the judges were reasonable in making that decision twenty years ago in towns but now with mendez i would just say it's should be out the window  and i will say when towns was remanded to the th circuit they did ultimately give damages for all of it to the plaintiff and i think that in my brief when mendez what you're saying mendez mendez yes sir and just to conclude i did have one case that i found dealing with as of the similar essentially the same issue involving the unlawful stop it involved two separate consecutive warrants checks and that doubles the length of the stop in that case it was only eight minutes and then we did two consecutive checks instead of thirty and i don't think there was any lengthy interrogation as here the court said that violated the th amendment it's a th amendment was