right will counsel on people versus vs please approach tell us who you are and who you represent now they pull bit passengers out of the car for officer safety that's allowed but it added time to the south as soon as they both got identification from all the passengers there was up to six passengers in this car and then ran that identification told them but tell me where in the record that is i understand the answer your argument but reading the transcript i don't see what order anything was done in whether mr vance was first or last when they were running these all together what's the actual support for the argument that it extended the lawful stop well what we know from rodriguez v the united states is any time at t any deficiencies in the proof as to the timing is against the state because they are the ones that have to justify to this court and to the trial court as to why there was not a constitutional so is the burden of proof determinative if the defendant had the burden of proof to show that the start stop the lawful stop was unnecessarily prolonged then he loses if it's a state that violation based on this record oh are we know that time had to have been added to stop because the initial purpose is we always look at what the initial purpose was of the stop here was the red light violation anything that occurs adding time to that has to either be tied to the initial missing or has to have a connection to some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity so one would looking there's some like dual system in a car i don't know if there's that yet if you have maybe two cars right and you have the additional officer who's conducting the normal connection to the original traffic stop running the red light violation ticket reading that out at the same time concurrently a second officer doing that shack so we're sure that one officer was standing with the passengers on the side of the car while the other officer went into this why car to do the checks that that what the record reflects that's what i that's how i conclude from the record what happened here was that one officer whole of the passengers out and after the driver been pulled out and that one officer supposedly ran all their identification it's now you so there wasn't any reasonably the passengers were breaking the law they were in a car that had tinted windows in the back seat the ba thing the cops look in the window and see them smoking we are handling drugs or drug paraphernalia and they are gone nothing like that so they were just sitting there passengers and one of them was sitting next to a clear window and one of them was sitting next to it tend window so the officers testified that they pulled him up for officer safety certainly in terms of the tenant window one could understand it but but there were two of them so you're arguing with even if it was just a couple extra seconds it took more time to do that than just pulling  that's what happened here and the state cannot demonstrate it did it prolong the stop it all they want to do that they should present that evidence in the trial court they don't get two bites of yeah they should've done that below if they're saying this did not prolong the stop because it was their it going back to the arizona b johnson situation the attorney pat down there was allowed because there was a fear that the passenger was on the third passenger in that case because of these game clothing area they were questionable i think that terry pat down should allow that situation but it was allowed and that was fine if a situation where another passenger not pass here but anothe passenger flight or something i think that would go to what the traffic violation was and that there was sufficient basis to a long stop at that point because there has to be reasonable suspicion at that point right anything to  so in your hypothetical it denies it but then if the question is the officer then pay him or even hurrying this person to do that i mean that would not be a it would be a to cards t s s cards it now takes more time than it used to use feel like a ten second drill and now it's a couple minutes their time was built into stopping the car do we know whether the other officer added so your argument that an added time to this stop what happens to that argument well it's again the wasn't just the gravity of the identifications but that would have added time to the initial stop what they did make contact cards for the to do then two passengers and then it's for the record that isn't that there was no other yes a yes cards besides dr bright yellow while the driver side officer is filling out the new car yes because the state if it had evidence of that that it was supposed to be concurrent if they wanted to justify the stop based on what you're talking about it would have presented evidence of that that was being done concurrently but what we have here is big came out of the car and then everyone's identification was run through apparently not just a warrant check but also the investigative a little system we don't know how long after that might have taken longer than the t we don't know we know we know it at a time because we know the state did not present evidence that it happened concurrently like you do a series on of the johns that goes back to my question to the effect that it is the burden of proof that's important here and the murder of her once it shifted correct yes and the state absolutely had that burden to present that evidence it is clear from when i spoke to the president that once the burden shifts they have to provide that evidence in order to the defense could of course rebut that evidence and say no it did extend the time to the stop but you have any evidence that you're just saying we guess it takes took longer because there are two of these guys and the police this one officer while he's getting the warrants and the investigative alerts and blah blah blah these guys the two passengers that d s s occurred the verbal warning the identification process with the driver didn't take that long what we know from the record is that they all came out of the vehicle all the identifications were obtained or at least most of them it's a little unclear actually about the driver but then everyone's was run through the system whatever being a warrant check system for the of alert system so we know that that added time to just be singular there was one that of course at a time in this instance and i'm not saying that this they couldn't have presented evidence they didn't they chose not to that's their they have to go through at least those two i'm not aware that there is a separated system where the it does seem to be saying this so it may not be what i'm saying is that big day they didn't just do some sort that i guess it could be all part of one system where word check would come up or a warrant would come up as also at the same time as an investigative work i'm on i'm unclear on that from reading the investigative alert six page  correct and i do i frankly don't think the united states supreme court has ever directly addressed this issue either i'm taking a look at both the whitley warden of wyoming u s b hensley i mean those you mean those are a terrorist so there's not this in between where we have some sort of parallel warrants stumm in the state or a city that allows twelve thousand officers to arrest someone weeks later court has never approved such a system where we go outside of the normal warrant requirement for the national database and to say this under the state's rationality or that somehow this is still constitutional the investigative alert system is constitutional her boyfriend's testimony correctly that isn't does not render this here harmless it was relied upon that statement during the trial court's finding of guilt i don't know how the state can say that this is harmless given that fact but we war i believe was fourteen days based off i think was july twenty ninth to the thirteenth of august and they put the investigative alert i don't even know what they did between the twenty nine july when they name check that was conducted on depended in this case did not prolong the traffic stop so i ask you the same question i asked mr bender whose burden was that show that it did not go along  so i would agree that at the time that it shifted it would have shifted to us but in looking at the rodriguez case that counsel has referred to it's correct that the language in that case is that no time should be added the stop should not be prolonged but i think that what this court needs to look at is what the u s supreme court with looking at in terms of the parameters of  so in the rodriguez case itself there's a traffic stop there's a name check that's conducted on defendant and then i believe following that there is a name check that's conducted on the passenger was in that car the thing that concerned the court and one what they were referring to when they referring to prolonging the stop was the dog snap that took place after the entire traffic stop was completed and that would include the name check of the passenger don't know what you did first or second so it could a prolonged it yeah the driver for well i would have to response sat so the first thing that i would say is that the officer does testify that he did all of the name checks once everyone was out of the car so that would suggest that all of the name checks were done at the same time well you can't do mug doesn't have to do one  the warning that was given to the driver of the vehicle was what came last that's what he said the what the warning would have come last so the warning that was given to the driver of the vehicle would signify the end of the traffic stop so while in the record it's it becomes a little bit confusing because it almost looks like the warning came before the name check he does state that the warning came last and that's the more logical way to read the record because it would be ridiculous to think he's going to give a warning before he even sees if this person has a outstanding warrant or multiple violations so looking at the record in that sense it would seem that the name checks were done during the scope of the traffic stop which then ended when the verbal warning was given to the driver because i would be prolonging if you would have to or well the actual placing of the defendant in custody wouldn't prolong the stop because there's no indication that the the driver so if the driver is given the warning and they've made the decision to arrest the defendant the traffic stop is over and then they place the defendant in custody but the fact that when they actually take him into custody  i don't think it would make a difference in terms of the question once they've established the probable cause for his arrest during the named so your general position  rodriguez recognizes that as part of a lawful traffics at least on yet the identification not only of the driver but a passenger can run those named shacks and do whatever they're going to do with respect to the traffic violation and that's ok it's only when they extend the stop by bringing in a drug sniffing dog then it becomes on constitution unnecessarily prolongs the stop that would be unconstitutional and if it's a a dog sniff for and only a pat down of an individual whatever the case maybe your position here is when their warning was given him or the end of the trip yes and do we know whether th complete in terms of be investigate tory alert issue what occurred here was consistent with what the highland court stated should occur the officers which is the purpose of the castle to sion is to protect people from just this type of activity where a neutral individual is not making those determinations if detect received which could have easily i mean you have no basis to tell me why they didn't get a warrant is nothing i think i just told him so they should be getting more that's what that to me that's what the constitution provide there is there is no case in the state or to my awareness in the country that says that and invest it for a alert such as the one that was used here is i got to say well maybe this issue hasn't been his right this it is in this case in that can show that there was valid probable cause for that investigatory warrant which there was in this case based on the knowledge that detective davis had at the time and saw the investment or alert that it's a valid arrest  so what you're saying is it's ok for police officers never to get warrants but after the fact if they should have gotten a warrant because they have probable cause they were going to say it's ok so that's the system in illinois opposed to other state only one of that i'm not saying that it may not have been a better practice to get a warrant i i don't know based on this record the rationale that they had but what occurred in this case was not a violation of the fourth amendment because there was a valid probable cause for an arrest and that's what is necessary but when we don't we don't know them because nothing was under oath there was no objective decision maker about probable never goes outside the chain of command of the police department it's an internal document it's an internal process instantly that i cannot find any sanction or in any statute in the state of illinois can you do this any statute the state of illinois say yes you can use investigative leads instead of warrants i am not aware of one well then maybe the police department is using a process as you know one hundred years old that has to be revisited it's easier it's faster i gather i get where they want to do it but that doesn't make it right but it's consistent with what occurs in hundreds of arrests every day when you talk to warrantless the rest are you have your own database that these investigative alerts go to or other states or other communities are also posting investigative the alerts instead of warrants it's it's actually my understanding that investigative alerts don't go beyond the city of chicago so i am i'm not aware of any kind of national database where we place our investigative alerts i'm not would there be a prohibition against doing that as far as i am aware investigative alerts are something that the chicago police use internally for themselves would it be fair to say it's a shortcut and they have three weeks to go get warrant and they have a willing witness and victim that they could get a warrant but i did i would say it's an alternate method i i would not say it's a short but i would say that it's something which to date has not been found unconstitutional based on case law and so the decision that was made by the detective in this case what built in protection is there for any suspect under that system is there would be a warrant for example what is the what is the protection of the whole fourth amendment is to protect people and their rights what is a corollary protection in an investigative alert where is the defendant can do what he did here and he can bring a motion to but he's still going to  if if you're saying that it's defacto unconstitutional simply because he's arrested without a a magistrate or someone else making the independent determination of probable cause then you would have to say have exit in circumstances police officers a man waving a gun in front of the building they don't need a warrant to stop they're right here this event happened three weeks in advance three weeks three weeks ago plenty of time to get a willing victim could go under oath no problem arguably he could have gotten a warrant so it might be that there are are lots of a ross that do not meet the standard of with the because the place for it is using an outmoded method and that may be the case but it's not the case in this situation there's there's no question in this case that there was valid probable cause i mean you heard counsel state the same thing during his argument there was valid probable cause for arrest it would have been probable cause if he'd been the driver no problem with that because that would have been a regular so that one to find out that there was a problem and this is that's a different scenario this is he's sitting in a car he's not doing anything the police officer did not testify that he saw him doing anything illegal he's sitting in a car that's it but the information that was contained in the investigative alert was valid probable cause  seizures and our position would be based on the case law and the rationale behind the cases that have been decided i'd knowledge in your distinction about the fact that the defendant was not the driver in this case that the arrest in this case was validly made on the investigative alert which there's clear evidence in the record both that that hearing on the motion and at the trial that the detective had valid probable cause at the high is he any worse off because of this investigative alert he's not and in fact the investigative alert contains as much if not more information as a war about is that fourth amendment protection so i see a big difference between those two scenarios that we just discussed what why have investigators alerts i hesitate to say expediency certainly you could get in a situation like this you could get the investigative alert out there faster so you know when you when you as a season detective know that you have enough information for probable cause and you want to get the alert out there as quickly as possible so that you can get this individual off the streets faster this took fourteen  well i mean in that time they could have gotten a warning and that's also you know expediency time i mean this is not a situation where somebody is dangerous walking the streets of you know is that there are many dangerous there could be dangerous people or you want to do to me this is one of those cases besides expediency which which i so it's you don't have to go before a judge because there's a national emergency you know maybe that happens once in a blue how can it be a valid process in the same way because it's faster you know it's it's a valid process in the same way that it is when any officer in his sworn duty makes the decision that see something criminal going on nobody saw this happening but if you have a citizen who comes up to a police officer on the street and says that man in the red shirt just robbed me there would be a valid probable cause to make that warrantless arrest and it's there's there's no difference between between an on street arrest they stand on a statement by a citizen who tells a police officer something and th police officer makes the determination that there is valid probable cause for him to arrest that person it's the same as that person coming into the police officers station telling him this person did this to me and him witnesses to testify before the magistrate unless it's a confidential informant or and sometimes come in for ministry's but if a police officer takes a complaint from a citizen about a battery or whatever this officer pulls out the affidavit that's what that's the basis for our right right and i and that's what i was referring to when you have an individual who tells the police officer about something so if there's nothing further to the first issue we would stand on our briefs and we would ask this court to affirm the decision of the lower court thank you thank you or that the obtaining of the idea was an online seizure and three the running of the passengers idea there was connected to the mission of a traffic stop because guess what was happening the driver was getting arrested he didn't have a license and so the officer specifically said that when the police when the action is police activity outside the normal inquiries it doesn't matter whether that occurs before or after a ticket is issued it's whether add any that were not like rodriguez but rodriguez says if this says any time added and the state's evidence below doesn't demonstrate what you just said it says all these i d s were run it you know concurrently essentially so of course that at a time it wasn't and that concurrently it was added after each other and so we don't have that situation like there is going to be johnson situation where you had one of the officers talking to the driver while at the same time the third officer what you're also saying is if we first when i have to and after self the second fourth amendment issue which has to do with investigative alert because that with tear this whole thing rather than the other and regards to the investigative alert i just wanted to i did take a look at the policy it printed out and it looks like it was section for a six basically says they can renew these and there's no time like