on border crossings and detail criminal records at the time in the stop when he consulted that database nd the district courts rationales for rejecting the officers investigative choice were themselves unreasonable  officer acted reasonably diligently in making the call as to the st reason at minute seventeen of the stop the officer not only had reasonable suspicion but as the district court itself noted quoting this court's mark as diaz decision cascading events had added the officer phillips's suspicion but said at the end of the conversation with robel as the officer for the st time in the stop had hiking reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking under grandy connor and under sharp the officer had more latitude in his investigative choices at that moment not less and the facts that the officer testified to showed that calling the el paso intelligence center at that moment was reasonable under the th amendment including the testimony that route sixty nine traffic commonly originates from the border including morality has prior conviction from el paso for conspiracy to import over one hundred kilograms of marijuana into the united states including contradictory statements of when he had last crossed the border including that like the officer in mayville this officer was somewhat limited in the information he could glean from his in car computer under terry the epic call was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference as the nd reason the district court's rationales as this court knows reasonableness under the th amendment is de novo review in the district court's reasonableness hold in de novo the district courts rationales were themselves unreasonable one of the rationales was that it was unreasonable for the officer to check order crossing information because the suspects are already told the officer when they last crossed the border that rationale isn't reasonable because in cases like confirm the story it would have been bad police work not to confirm another rationale the district court says that the officer's actions didn't match up with his intentions that's unreasonable because the th amendment is about objective reasonable it's not subject intentions the burleson case among others shows us that saying it was error for the district court to consider the officer subjective intentions as the rd reason the government wins the officer acted reasonably diligently in calling epic for this court's ma decision he placed a call to give information when asked he was placed on hold and there's no indication that he acted on reasonably during that call to extend it or to make it longer than it needed to be to the exten let's pause there and get to some question let's let's assume that the officer had reasonable suspicion and at the time that he could he called the possible addition to the reasonable suspicion calculus would that information provide another were in other words let's let's say they have to come back and it demonstrates that they had lied about their travel plans that still doesn't get us to probable cause and where were we left with they're going to have to unless you let you disagree with that at some point regardless of that  you know that why they're going to be let go aren't they know i do disagree with that i think st of all as we laid out in our reply brief there's a strong possibility that depending on what they found during the at the call that that epic as the officer testified could tell not only what border the men had crossed and what time they had crossed but it could tell what times they had crossed it could tell where they had started their travel on that day so the officer could have found out from epic actually this car crossed the border about four hours ago and also across the border ten times the last ten days and a few times it was driven by a few different people you know always two men you know and  you know information like that they could have then added to the officer suspicion and in a lot of cases this court has established what it means to quickly confirm or dispel an officers suspicion like in cash bringing the probation officer to the scene that's not something that necessarily would have answered the question of what the suspects motivations corner but it was relevant to the officers development if it's reasonable suspicion because the probation officer knows more than the officer on the scene about this this defendant and actually just having the probation officer on the scene didn't end up creating probable cause in and of itself noticing a gun ended up creating probable cause and similar answer questions that judge judge judge even was concerned that the officer really was not diligent circumstances because he waited  well into the detention before taking this additional investigatory step right well so there's there's a couple things i would say to that the st is that that is really an efficiency argument not a diligence argument the idea that the officer could have started this at the call right at the beginning of the stop and then by minute seventeen he might have had this information but st of all we don't as citizens want the rule to be that you know run of the mill traffic stop an officer has to take  investigated tactic like calling at that right from the get go it is reasonable you know run of the mill traffic stop for the officer to rely on the oklahoma system that you've been given and the court said that the officers actions up till minutes seventeen clearing all the questioning of more allison including all the questioning of worthless were reasonable under the circumstances and there's been no contention by mr morale is that that finding a fact or finding of the law was incorrect and they only  minutes yes you're does that how do how do we say that that is a reasonable duration for traffic stop i think that thirty two minutes likely would not be a reasonable duration just to conduct the normal routine activities of a traffic stop but this was a traffic stop that was supported was extended because of reasonable suspicion unlike the traffic stops and we'll agree guys and clark for  example so you have to look at this court case law about stops extended by reasonable suspicion like sotto servant and that was an investigative its engine that took over an hour like rather for based on reasonable suspicion of marijuana trafficking that was an investigative petition that  the officer during the discussion didn't learn that the men would cross the border but the officers serially and incrementally gain more and more suspicion that these men were involved in drug trafficking but i  thought i'm one of them had told him told the officer they had crossed the border yes that's accurate that's that's correct he didn't say that he had crossed the border that day in that car but ok i did say that he had crossed the border and that was  and how the car ended and how far into the into the stop did that information come to light that was during that six minute question of robel as a team just prior to the at the call so that was when the court said essentially you had run of the mill reasonable suspicion up until talking a rogue was now you talk to rogue was all of a sudden we've got heightened reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking and we've got like in marcus diaz you've got a situation where cascading events have added to the officer suspicion and now he makes an objective lee reasonable step i think i want to confirm what they said earlier about border crossing in light of everything i've heard and based on this court case law taking  investigative steps that sometimes go longer than the person taking the step expects is not unreasonable and it's important to understand that in granby conner the supreme court said that the officer with the court has to consider the case in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer so at minute one minute minute for a minute ninety off have heightened reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking he was a minute seventeen when the officer had heightened reasonable suspicion of drug counsel the district court found that additional information the officer learned from epic on the quote here would neither have dispelled or confirmed his heightened reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking and that's the end of the quote isn't this a finding of fact  no your honor and i'll tell you i think that a bit the court was referring to and you'll see that a court that would not have confirmed or dispelled his reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking and that's referring back to the transcript that appendix page one hundred and twenty three where the court was talking with the officer in the court said would that information that he could learn from el paso have added to your reasonable suspicion and the officer gave an answer i was just more concerned that if they had probation violations or anything like that they don't always show up on a leg and then proceeded to talk about all the advantages of checking the information from epic versus from the oklahoma system so the district court here was concerned with the fact that the officer was describing the facts like an officer not like a lawyer the officer was not concerned with i'd like to increase my reasonable suspicion the officer was concerned with the facts on the ground which were i've got a situation here where questions to the court's liking in terms of what would have confirmed or denied your reasonable suspicion but as the court's cases tell us as this court cases tell us in the supreme court cases tell us it's not about this officers subjective reasonable suspicion it's about taking all the facts that the court found and there were extensive findings of fact in this case taking all those facts objective we would an objective officer think that calling epic was a reasonable step to do and this court's cases have said in multiple cases the benefits of calling up and all the information you can get from ethnic however to the extent this court disagrees and finds that that's a finding of fact rather than part and parcel of the court's reasonable determination then of course that finding a fact is clearly erroneous because of all the facts that the officer set out on the record about why the calling epic could get him information and would be likely in fact in this case  information that would bear on the material way this evolving situation all right let me let me just be clear on this because to me this is an important point you've indicated that colling to serve the confirming purpose and what you're saying is that if this if the court thought that it didn't and that's a finding of fact you're saying that's clearly  if if the court if this court finds that that finding is a finding of fact then then yes that that finding a fact is clearly erroneous or i cut your point thank you yes your honor and i think i'd like timeline that we have of the recording and her finding she said that all the tasks reasonably related to the traffic stop should have been completed at that point in time versus terry versus ohio applied other than traffic stops which is when you have reasonable suspicion that has developed about criminal activity which judge egan and her findings  recognizes as lasting twenty two minutes after minute twelve and so what is provided to us by cases like may feel is the right disposal for purposes of safety to determine if there is a criminal background or outstanding warrants for the officers information so the officer can gauge if there's safety issues that's always present and it doesn't have to be articulated by the officer in a given case and that was done in this case squishy oh what is the afternoon and used that the officer did it check with to determine information about licensing and so on as well as any outstanding warrant and then he determined there were no outstanding warrants so then at the end deal is not informative to or is not guidance to how this case should be resolved because the the court in a veil is looking at the scope of detention during a traffic stop and certainly is saying that the court's not going to nitpick the officers conduct in terms of saying that you have to use your computer versus so if we're on the other side of the line from the traffic stop then what i'm pointing out is that the safety concerns that always are present for all traffic  stops become different because in this situation in this case the the safety concerns that the officer may have had been investigated and the officer is not articulating any further concerns about safety and this record he doesn't say that he did and that that check for purposes of safety so well it's it's it's an objective standard and wouldn't the women have to to complete the stop here or maybe whether he wanted to call in a drug sniffing dog at that point so i mean just to begin with the latter the officer did testify that in his outlook on what his options for that one of those options was to call in a canine the one was not available and so he just crossed that off sixty minutes was within that window why would you you know treat that type of investing tory tactic differently then bring in bringing in a sniffing dog you know it's within the same time  window ok so presupposing with that that the epic check is a justified and devore as part of the investigative detention then i think the question is one about the length of time and the record does not indicate why he's keen minutes was necessary or what if it was a standard amount of time if you look at the drug dog drug sniffing dog cases for instance you're going to have sacks in those cases especially the ones to have an extended duration where there's an explosion by the officer about well the other officer that had the canine was way down the road it took them twenty minutes to drive to me and this court in the last i think decade had a case i'm over them that said well he was waiting on the dog to arrive and that's that was that was accounted for i was justified and we don't have something similar in terms of a sexual development from the officer that explained why this was taking fifteen minutes and is judging and i pointed out why he didn't begin to run that check at every we could we could watch we could watch the video and it would which i didn't pretty clear the officer wasn't doing anything the the way i was spawns from from from the people you know you can you can listen in for yourself yeah what i'm saying is not to pin it on the officer but to look to the evidence provided by the officer as we commonly do with officers explaining standard operating procedure and what they typically do  cetera to give us some accounting for why this takes fifteen minutes or else it just becomes a carte blanche it just becomes you know how how would a court ever so as you know judge egan framed in two different ways she she said that the epic check was unnecessary and unreasonable and there's two components to that number one was didn't yet check at  was my understanding that the defendant here does not challenge the constitutionality of the actions of the officer for through the st sixteen minutes is that right not on appeal there was a challenge trafficking was was occurring yes that is not a question on appeal ok so the officer then had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop and to verify information that he had learned thus far in the not looking at the purpose of what the officer did which i do think is fair game for analyses of these cases and that's to be distinguished from subjective inten the officer did not state any purpose of verifying the report by mr robles that he had crossed the border the previous monday so this is looking more at detail of what epic would have potentially provided to this officer this officer did not testify to what he hoped to get from epic in terms of details multiple crossings dates and times of crossing that's what we are i don't think that's what this guy wasn't wasn't there wasn't there any reasonable basis for the officer to continue his investigation once one of these individuals volunteered to the officer that he had recently crossed the border diligently pursued it means an investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly and so we will then he had he had a reasonable suspicion to continue the stop and said now we're now we're questioning whether or not calling epic was a reasonable investigative to me yes we're looking at whether epic is a means of investigation that that would address his suspicion and here in this case we have the officer not at all saying that he called epic to address the suspicion that springs from real light replaces report of crossing the border the officer did not express any concern about that he said he wanted to see if there were probation violation time thank you ok just building on the last colloquy it seems to me breaking down the thirty two minutes st ten minutes were from merrily focused on of i believe that the the officer is referring to the border crossing information that when it's when it's put in context of as social context of that he had been told that relays had crossed the border so the robot was forthcoming was was candid about that and in judging finding she as the finder fact appears to have credited that this is not a situation where the officer ever said well i think i question that i think it was self serving somehow and i question that  idness in other words it's one thing to be candid and it's one thing to be fully camp that the tests are checks and have it take as long as this or maybe perhaps longer and the next case just in every every case automatically you're given this and so saying that it needs to be justified in particular facts and circumstances of the case here the officer did not say well ethical tell me about various multiple crossings and times and they're not new but a pattern i would approach this differently nineteen the officer said that he was looking for evidence of recent border crossings and that's something that epic could give him he said that epic on page appendix one hundred and twenty three says that if it could tell him where they started their travel on that show is see what this court's cases show is that the investigative steps need not itself immediately resolve reasonable suspicion or have the potential to immediately resolve reasonable suspicion but the point is in cases like sort of surveillance as in cases like cash if the officer finds out something else material that is deception from the defendants that is something that will materially advance the investigation and then if the officer confronts the defendants about well you told me that you've only crossed the border on monday or was it wednesday here and cross the border ten times more last ten days that itself can then i've run out of time but quickly certainly did the district court did seem in this case to draw an arbitrary line between dogs sniff cases and non dog sniff cases our court this court's opinion show an officer has more options available to him than simply asking for a dog sniff or asking for consent and that what the officer does should be specifically tailored to the case at hand and the case at hand here at minute seventeen when he had heightened reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking called for some additional investigation of the