please the court i'm jonathan sternberg from kansas city missouri and i represent the appellant d v on williams mr williams appears appeals from a judgment sentencing him to one hundred twelve months in prison on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm this court should reverse that judgment because under the fourth amendment the district court should have suppressed that firearm which had been found in a red dodge challenger automobile that mr williams was suspected of driving in our briefs we explain that this is for two reasons and i'd like to begin by addressing the first is just raise these privacy issues yes the government has never contested at all that he that the car in any way wasn't something that he had been driving in fact that's its entire cases he hadn't stolen the car but he had been driving it there is no notion that it wasn't loaned to him it's not his job to prove that if the government doesn't contest that and i understand standing is always an issue in this court obviously has a duty to address standing but if the government doesn't contest that the mr williams has no duty to rebut that that being said the issue that the first issue that we have is the fourth amendment did not allow kansas city police officer justin palmer to stop the red challenger in the first place on his articulated notion that it had been stolen as he lacked a reasonable suspicion that it had been stolen he testified that he did it didn't have expired tags the it had a temporary tack which didn't show up when the when the when the police first ran it that's correct it had a temporary tag on it from kansas would that be a reason to stop it no it would not because that wasn't what the articulated suspicion  articulated suspicion was that it was stolen and it wasn't it didn't come from that instead it came from officer as officer palmer testified on page fourteen of the transcript that he believed he had previously read that day from what they call the jewels would it be a reason would it be a legitimate reason to to stop the vehicle they did not know that it was an expired tag at the time so no it would not have been that th the the plates were run after the decision already had been made to stop the car there is no evidence in the record that that was a reason that was ever used so no under these under this under the under this timing that would not have been a reason to stop the car the only reason it was ever given for stopping the car was that officer palmer testified he believed he previously had read that day from this hatch and that a dodge challenger had been stolen from this dealership in excelsior springs he also admits though that he pursued the red challenger here without checking that hachi admitted on again page fourteen of the transcript that he could have or radio in dispatch to see if this was so and again he could have either of which would have shown him that the red car actually reported stolen was a dodge charger not a dodge challenger which he admitted that in his experience as a officer in the kansas city police department running the stolen car portion of the police department was a distinctly different automobile the law of the united states is and must be that this was not an objective lee reasonable mistake which is what the concede sometimes officers may reasonably rely on incorrect information that a trustworthy third party has given them on pages sixteen and so our reply brief we go through the government's case is about this the de leon in sparks cases where an officer radios in the correct license plate the dispatcher mishears it resulting in a stolen vehicle report and of course the officer can reasonably rely on that because that's you know he has no way of knowing that that's not an accurate report but a belief drawn purely from the officers own failure is not objective lee reasonable because there isn't reasonable reliance the government concedes this on page thirty one of its brief it agrees that where quote an officer either knew or should have known of his mistake the mistake is not objective legal respon officer beverly could have determined from information immediately available to him that the car in the report is not the one he was pursuing and that's exactly what occurred here under court has a standard it makes sense that this would not be a reasonable suspicion because the officers own failure isn't a commonsense conclusion from articulable facts reasonably raise a suspicion it's simply his blunder he messed up here officer palmer's belief that the red challenger was stolen earlier that day to determine that the purple challenger that was initially seen was indeed stolen because it was on that hachi and this goes to an interesting point the magistrate judge for the first time ever in this case and then the government in its brief harp on this the that while he didn't remember exactly which one was which on the day of the hearing that's on page twenty of the transcript on the day that this occurred that this incident occurred he absolutely did know and it's on page twenty one he says because he had determine from it that the purple challenger had been stolen so just so i understand there to the court there is a list of what other automobiles from the dodge dealership were stolen so he woke it's the perfect purple dodge challenger correct which everybody can see it was gone correct and that the dodge the red dodge challenger pulls up and he cory the magistrate judge mistakenly thinks that's the red dodge charger he thinks that earlier that day he had read that a dodge challenger had been stolen when in fact it was a charger but that's not radio dispatch to determine whether you know this was so he goes yes and then he volunteers i also didn't recheck the hachi when the report of the red challenger came in that's the problem and that's why this case is just like  feel and an officer has a report in front of them that a particular car is stolen and suspects that the car that they're following and ultimately stopping is stolen but they don't pay attention to the rest of the report in reality the rest of the report said what was actually stolen because he had mis typed this was a black motorcycle and of course anyone would know that it's not the same thing at officer palmer radio dispatch as he admits had he looked at the  admits he would have seen that this wasn't stolen it's the same thing i'd like to move to briefly but so you say that or i'm mistaken belief that's reasonable is not no it's not that is unreasonable in rest of the tenth circuit in twenty fifteen the officers quote failure to use readily available information already on the screen in front of her and from the dispatcher to verify that the vehicle was reported stolen was unreasonable that  is not a reasonable mistake because it's the officer's own failing not reasonable reliance on trustworthy information obtained from different parties kind of like you know but i'll leave it at that i'd like to move to the second issue which is more about timing than anything else and that's that the fourth amendment also separately didn't allow officer warner stump and house to continue to detain mr williams when by his own admission he no longer suspected the red challenger was stolen after running it's been which occurred at least as he said minutes before any contraband was found and admitted lee was the only reason for the stop now and in its brief the government says well you know they didn't really allay their belief on running the vin that the car had been stolen but that's not officer stump in house's testimony he testifies directly on page fifty eight to sixty there's a couple of exchanges that once the vin was run he knew conclusively the car was in stolen and he says this is at the very end i think it's on page fifty nine of the transcript questions so the car itself was not contraband at that point no because the car wasn't stolen correct so he knew as soon as the van was run and he admits this is the only reason for the stop the cars and stolen meanwhile my client and his companion are sitting there on the ground in handcuffs and instead of letting them go they wait a few more minutes until conveniently the police find contraband now the first piece of contraband is apparently some drugs that is near mr love who is my client's companion or is with my client at the time then later a gun is fan and in the in the front seat of the car it's a different gun to my clients actually charged with possessing but they even admit though a at the top is a real shame about the amount of time lapse for the contraband with a gun you know i wish that there had been a better transcript done of the police tapes because i think that would have shown a proper time index but what the record does show detention can be well without question i certainly agree with that but what we have here is a defined discernible period between the reason for the stop being finished and the discovery of that contraband and in the rodriguez case the supreme court said rodriguez and twenty fifteen the supreme court held that as soon as the reason for the stop is allayed the stop has to end the detention must end and anything found after that violates the fourth amendment i see that i'm running low on time i'd like to reserve the rest of if i could for rebuttal thank your me please the court found herself united states i'm going to start with the start of the first issue but i'm actually going to take one run at the standing question first i have a couple of further loaned it to the defendant without knowledge of mr middleton this is a thing that we've mentioned in our brief and then was in fact blind to the use of the car by the defendant and with respect to not having raised this before rodriguez  honor so i'm not sure where are we have that on the stand what's your position are our position your honor is that there's no evidence in the record demonstrating that the  owner of the vehicle didn't know if it was using it is there is there any presumptions that if you're driving a car it never been reported stolen is there any presumption that you're doing it with the consent of the owner i guess what i'm getting at is if if we were going if we were to go down there route can we say well you didn't you didn't pursue prove consent  i think i think your honor that that i would say that the opportunity to put that evidence on in fact the case of the defendant testifies and suppression hearing to establish that kind of thing that testimony can later be used was the government even though well i don't know so you're saying that they have to assume and every year if you have to prove in every suppression hearing that you're all in the vehicle or call somebody to say  i don't know i don't think that's what you normally do in a suppression and i was the government says i don't think you were driving with the permission of the owner i want to point to a case and give you a case on that your honor and i just i'm coming up empty on on that point i don't want to misstate what i think i don't misstate with the laws on that i just i don't want to i'm happy to to to provide that information to you at a later time i don't that it was being used well mr williams can testify and suppression hearing that that is we have about that in fact in the record is what the officers overheard the defendant say when they were there and was  the car had been provided to him by in a female whose name he did not know at a point earlier in time during that day now of course that was that the the officers knew that that wasn't the case because they observe the vehicle drive in there only minutes before so that that that statement is a statement i can point to in the record about the provenance of the vehicle being there but i think that actually leads me to directly into the second point what did they talk to the owner i think if that information is not in the record you know this is what the in a footnote on page eight of your brief it says that in his motion to suppress williams stated that milt and the owner had loaned his car to a third party who allowed williams to drive it but that milton was blind to williams use of the car that's that's correct and that was a statement that was made by counsel in the motion to suppress it was a scene that came on evidence we then if we have a situation as this is indicated here where the true owner does it no who's actually driving and in possession of  tags i do think in your bio you always want page i did also says that the vehicle had a temporary tag and that temporary tag had expired yes your honor and i think that actually goes to both the issues in this case the first issue about the question of whether they could have stopped  it's correct that my colleague says that that wasn't what was in his mind but we all know that what was in his mind doesn't matter the question is what would it have ject of lee reasonable officer in that position thinks if they'd seen the tags were expired i think that would have given him a basis to stop it but even more so has testified was a maybe a minute maybe two that was the actual testimony on that that time was completely covered by at the time that the officer learned that the car had not been reported stolen he also learned that the tags for that car works  d so that point was a subjective fact that in his mind at the tags were expired that could have x justified the officer doing what i think was reasonable in any case which was attempting to figure out who of the people who were around a car that had just been driven to that spot was responsible for bringing that car to that location so it has been suggested here that the the as soon as the officer learns that the vin has not been reported stolen it's like the whistle at the end of the game cinderella at midnight everybody has to just pack up and leave  and not look around us are doing so and i think that that as we suggested in our brief is not doesn't account for the situation at the officers are in fact encountering with respect to the duration so they said they saw this car pull up next to another car is an area where the officer knows that there are he's recovered stolen vehicles for and this is a point at this point the officer says yes the bin has not been reported stolen but in fact the officer says that doesn't mean that the car wasn't stolen it just gives him another piece of information but that it doesn't mean he has to pack up and leave and in fact at that point he knows that the car has expired tags and he can go ahead next try to figure out who's responsible for the car being driven unlawfully on the road and among those people in fact it was it was elisa did from by defense counsel why didn't you ask the people around who owned the car and they also said we have it did and why did we do that we're trying to figure out when the car came back with a no records on the license plate the question was well whose car is this and how can we account for its presence here in this place and i think that takes that question takes them all the way to the point at which they observe the contraband on the ground the observe if the everything had been as the officer believed it to be was to stop at that point did he have reasonable suspicion for the stop because he believed the car was stolen he saw the car stopped next to another car he it was a high crime area with ok at that point we all agree that there had been as he believed there was stop i think but the question is what about this what he could have just looked and in ops or who doesn't look down at his clipboard while he is following an occupied stolen vehicle a vehicle he believes to be so and is unreasonable for having not done that i think that that ignores that a couple of things about the situation first of all the hot she is three different hot sheets they cover every stolen vehicle in the kansas city metro area for the past thirty days so there a the abbreviations are three letters long so this case and the officer say looks down at some point looks at the height she figures out that that he believes that there is a red dodge challenger still on when in fact what he got right was it was red it was a dodge it was a late model vehicle in fact the officer observed it to be clean as if it had been stolen from the dealership which is what he believed to be true and in fact the car and that the previous one for that car i read mis read them or mis remember them when he's later informing another officer in the area that there's another stolen vehicle out there yes i think that's a reasonable mistake it can be made but i think there's an additional two points and need to be put on that appears out of nowhere and drives up and stops next to the vehicle that he believes to that he knows to be a stolen purple challenger for no reason in the middle of the street there's no kids running around nobody gets in or out of the car i think that it doesn't unlike and i think that case where the all of the people who were stopped in that vehicle said hey look you've got a problem you've messed it up real look at what you're looking at this isn't the right car and in fact on the screen in front of him or of the officer could have seen that they that that information was there telling him different kind of car the same thing with the motorcycle case there was an affirmative finding in that case that all reasonable officers would know that in illinois they issued the same plate number to motorcycles and to cars so when he put the plate number in it came back as a stolen motorcycle that was a mistake well the court said yeah but all reason lawyers know that this weird scheme of issuing the same numbers to two different kinds of vehicles is in place here the fact that came out confirmed or corroborated the mistake that the officer had made the officer says i think it's a red dodge challenger won't hold a red dodge challenger shows up in an area where he has previously recovered so on vehicles he sees it it stops next to you or is it his partner sees that it stops next to a vehicle on the road that he knows to be it i think that to the and it's one of the point on that i think that care has to be taken with a situation with an officer is driving the government is a different position than what the transcript shows it clearly shows that he said i could have following an occupied vehicle he believed to be stolen in a high crime area to require basically all reasonable officers in that case to look at what the hachi says again i don't think that's necessarily required  example of the high she has multiple pages which we refer to as courts exhibit one we don't have the actual hot sheets an issue in the record so i can't tell the court whether there are multiple pages there is one of the point that my  counsel or calling me that i'd like to respond to that all of these cases are in somehow just third party in the state cases that's the government has a different read on the law the government says that it believes that there are in fact multiple cases here in th without any additional questions alternate back over to my colle your honors the government must be reading the different record than i have here in front of me to start with this license plate issue its pages nineteen and then twenty nine and thirty of transcript thirty one to thirty two the license plate wasn't run until the car already had been stopped so that can't be a reason for stopping the car in the first place either and so we're going back to stopping the car the issue of the abbreviations and the government said that the standard is not a subjective standard so it's an objective  i agree if it were a subjective standard than you know the fourth amendment would be thrown out the window i think that's one of the spring i would use got a vehicle with expired tags but it's already been stopped by that point that's the problem when we're it's not about the original stop i'm talking at the original stop you so what why is that a valid stop to stop with when a vehicle has expired tags was it that legitimate basis to make a traffic stop i agree and if that had been the officers reason had they run the tags found the tags were expired and then chosen to stop the vehicle i would agree with you your honor but that's not what happened here the vehicle already was stopped that's the that's the record by the time that happened that's a red herring and i think it's interesting the government's bringing that up the first time in oral argument at this point to the other issue abbreviation thing officer and they ignored this in their brief on page twenty one of the transcript officer palmer clearly says he knew what the abbreviations word that morning because of what had happened with the purple challenger so there's that finally this notion about the purple challenger was there so he had a reasonable belief that the red challenger was stolen if he only believe the red challenger was stolen because he hadn't looked back at at the h if he hadn't thought that was stolen simply the car stopping next to the car that was already there would not be a reason for for stopping it because you know there is that the read case from the supreme court nine hundred eighty if a behavior is attributable to an innocent traveller equally that it's not reasonable suspicion for a stop your honour's i would encourage the court to look through a reply brief in r r citations to the record there because they're different than what the government says and we've asked the court to reverse all right thank you anders appreciate your argument this morning does that conclude our calendar for this morning as well who will be in recess until further hala thank you