believe that given the evidence in the disputed facts that question is clearly answered in a palace favor and then the second question which has does does have a higher threshold which i think we also need however is do the cumulative acts of the court in your prejudice mr impose and carry all these right to a fair trial which i think we have a very unusual circumstance where the jurors make a statement at the end of the case arguing that him stake a fact allows the officers off the hook i think this court is very clear in the united states versus keeping to forty four and third seven thirty six at seven thirty nine that any mistake that must be both objective leave reasonable and done in good takes the good faith issue and the object of reasonableness certainly the good faith issue is clearly a question for the jury  registration it's pending well your honor the if the information would say that the registration is expired or if the registration is simply expired what application pending means is the person has an extension that's what application and he means and how do we know that that's what that means well i would like to be able to make that specific reference to the record of the other traffic officer who i believe  i want to see if you are you telling us as a matter of law the officers mis interpreted application pending i would say that you are and where we find them in the record that application pending means you are you have registration well it v has a process by which you say ok my registrations expire hiring i need to get a small work for whatever reason i need an extension and a valid extension of the registration  maybe maybe not but here's the argument you saying i have a reasonable suspicion because i saw the expired tag i didn't see the point and square on the back i saw an application pending or some such thing on my screen as ambiguity actually is what he did say on the screen i stopped the car i noticed a pink piece of paper on the back window why isn't his obligation because he knows darn well that that pink piece of paper may resolve the simply greeting one another in a parking lot under you know flood lights street lights one of the building out in the open as being suspicious even if that is a high crime that city the high crime area you need where there was extensive observations of suspicious activity communication passing objects between one another and so in this circumstance they really have nothing other than an african american  putting something in this car he said i mean he's not evidencing any furtive activity whatsoever this guy is just standing there in broad street like so to speak and the officers never bother to simply cross the street and say hi how are you can we talk to you for a minute instead they let him and that's because they know that what they have seen is not sufficient and even though it is an objective standard i think the facts objective we confirm what the officer and we knew we didn't have enough based on what we saw in the parking lot to pull him over and so that is the driving motive behind pulling him over you know and  although pretextual stop is permitted it must feel it's good in that violation it must be a clear legitimate violation of whatever traffic law the officers are using to actually pull the person over and here we don't that what we have at best our disputed fact the officer self serving testimony is disputed by the testimony of mr unfair yalit and by the officers observations of what was in the mobile data terminal similar he says i must draw all reasonable influences in favor of the party there's a distinction between drawing an anderson relying on the absence of evidence and then he says there's simply no evidence that anybody saw the sticker and he goes through all the factors  after midnight it's dark he's been told about the lighting it's a slant that hatchback type the rear window makes it difficult to see anything following even the most proximity and he conclude for a jury to decide that the officers did see this sticker would be an exercise in pure conjecture and speculation no evidence he says absence of evidence he says there is no evidence that they saw and that's true well  i respectfully disagree with what the evidence that they saw the fact that it was there the fact that it was there the fact that in fact it is maybe ten times as large as the sticker that they claim that they saw on the  did and that's where i disagree respectfully with the district court because the evidence is that look at the officer said well if mr imperiously said well my my windshield was covered i mean i'm trying to fifty rolling yes yes well if we got if we went on that point then i believe that that is one of the bases of arguing that we ought to win on our second question however is the second question being being did the of the district court's errors in taking this away from the jury as well as preventing me from asking leading questions of one of the officers as well as its gloss and qualified immunity that water now says when you've got a traffic stop you have the right to a custodial arrest the rights to as invasive searches can be conducted pursuant to an arrest all of this is now authorized by the most innocuous traffic stop so the question would be what does the soccer parents taking their children home from school when they get pulled over for a taillight violation if they are is credibility a quintessential issue for the jury and that's what we hear from the first day we walk in the law school credibility is with the jury and here there is an awful lot of evidence of the document in the window that would have deprive them of any suspicion because really you know it's right there so in order to make this ruling you've got to come to the conclusion that the officers are credible this is not for the jury to decide yes probably jury instruction record whether it just shows that it seems to me officer has probably seen that kind of thing all the time and in fact the testimony shows that the officers had seen stickers before and people often with expired tags had several window which they say they didn't see even if they had seen all of those things there's still a reasonable suspicion to make a stop yes because that means any time anybody is running around with a pinch kick around the back and expired tags but they paid their fees and they're perfectly legal database on the computer screen application pending and there is a ten in the back window that the officers see they can't tell if they're driving along of course what is the stand on this and the writing on that think tank they just here they didn't have that they had the thing as a pink sticker and it's not the right month on it i mean it seems to me that they got that from the d m v so that he could go around without being bothered you would think but there's plan of stone you can see through the back  assume that the officers did not see the doctor but and they stop based on what they think is the reasonable suspicion that there's an expired registration with the paperwork supporting it again sure you said and he has an obligation to do that i think one would have an obligation to look at paperwork supporting that the fees are paid according to vehicle code you know if you keep sliding off my question my question is very simple as he walks up to the car he sees that pink square does he have an obligation to look at it and read what it says not if it's pointed out time or for that all i'm thinking is i said he walks up to the car he there's not clear guidance for these officers and when they do well that's part of my questioning i mean i would have thought a reasonable answer might have been you know there's a pot if there's reasonable suspicion to stop there years in the field he's been trained to the economy for hours and hours on how to identify hand to hand transaction this is not a handshake the record actually demonstrated for the court in the record where it's more of a horizontal sliding away there of there's absolutely no record that shows what the plaintiff was was unable to accomplish exactly exactly in fact you know i counted in twenty nine pages i counted thirty leading question thirty four leading questions right there even after the court made a comment specifics the only basis for plaintiff's objection on the qualified immunity was that they thought that it was withdrawn from the model jury instructions but the judge pointed out i didn't use that one i was the one he made person who has a valid extend as a registered vehicle are they in violation of fourteen or four thousand and eight if they go to the d m v and do everything the d m v tells them to do they give them a temporary permit i think violation of four thousand answer no they're not violation of four thousand then i just i don't want to take up too much time that i go into the question at hand because maybe the jury isn't title per disbelieve the officers and i think that this is not ok i'm with you did you offer evidence from the d m v that the car was a properly registered at the time it was stopped you know your honor only what it was the sticker where was the sticker officers when when they approached the vehicle he had the street for the smog that he was waiting for the receipt for his his registration had all of the documentation within and presented it here the receipt for the small he was waiting