long oral argument we'll hear the first two and then take a very brief recess before completing the day's docket and we begin with united states versus just narrows mr garcia was still you need foot on the back he was still looking at the card he testified to that but the video shows that actually he didn't do any of that he testified to the fact that first of all he said that my client mr cisneros i write to the checkpoint and that he had to hel going to the immigration stop and within that fifty one seconds i think he has a car and if you see in the be the interaction last twelve seconds anything up to twelve seconds we contended that there was no question there was no reason to to ability of the alien to to decline i request is significantly impaired will respect to the video judges i worked the case below and the incident happened  february third and twenty seventeen right after the incident i requested the video on march fourteenth about a month later i received in discovery i report of the information investigation and in the report it clearly probable cause long before my client was convicted we presented these issues to these record the district be the issue was one thing that i think is very important that goes to the truthfulness of the of the how was shocked to see that an agent enters my client's car before the dog you see even at the scene now the government just picking up a cop or something that well judging distracting to the dog that is with routine something but the media doesn't show exactly what he perhaps we you can see that not only that there is no testimony regarding these drinking cup those are the attorneys words in her brief  about six years working all kinds of cases in this case the government simply use underhanded tactics i one point in the got the video help them in one important respect which is the time the length of the stop as you said that the testimony was two to three minutes it turns out it was less than a minute so that's sort of inconsistent with your theory that this was a ploy to keep the evidence hidden when it on perhaps the most important issue and it puts the government in a better light that the length of this tactics to secure the conviction that mr status there were underhanded tactics and these they did these while they were turning a blind eye to justice so for those reasons i respectfully request on simply the duration of the stops along it's a permissible purpose in the immigration checkpoint in this case we have a very routine and brief stop and as the court has seen from the video the time when from when agent b i guess first started approaching the car until the defendant gave consent was less than a minute during that time agent be i guess i asked routine travel questions questions about the defendant's citizenship and requested and received consent to perform the docs now the stock was clearly within the permissible limits in duration under this court's precedent images tell us about your opposition sort of irrelevant to the determination of reasonable suspicion or consent he was only irrelevant impersonality two different things we didn't do the affidavit purported to say that he had personal knowledge no i didn't he didn't have any personal knowledge of the events he wasn't even the port on the date of the arrest he simply was the case agent and he based his information that he came up with based on the reports and speaking with the agents at a later time that was clear from the affidavit from the offer david and and i would gauge and i don't believe that's accurate but even if it's true i mean what i mean even if that were true he he did testify at the suppression hearing he was able to provide the evidence that he had no personal knowledge events that occurred and once the consent to perform the dog sniff permissibly extended the stop for that purpose and of course the dog alerted less than two minutes after and the defendant a rider at less than three minutes after he first arrived at the checkpoint which gave probable cause to search the vehicle as as far the consent issue that was raised by the defendant other than holding his l p r card in his hand  factors under the taliban circumstances to show this was an involuntary consent and this was a brief a lawful stop along a major interstate with all other motorist that if it was cooperative he was inside his own car agent vegas did not mention his suspicions there's no evidence that he was abusive or threatened him in any way and also when he was holding the card the stop was not yet complete he was still he hadn't asked or received consent which as we know from is part of the immigration stop so while he was going under so under paralysing brown which is a case cited in paralysis it's not coercive when an agent retains those documents that he's rightfully entitled to have when he has not even completed the purpose of his stop so and about going back to the the length there or whether the stock up until that can simply was reasonable opposing counsel says the video shows that he wasn't really while he was holding the car he wasn't really examining immigration car use looking in the backseat you have an experienced agent of eight years who's holding a card who hasn't for a minute he says he's basically checking the hologram and flipping it over i think that that could easily happen and be missed on the video but i really invite the court to view the videos in their entirety and i believe that the evidence will support that i so wanted to address and the twelve second he said that the search became unreasonable after twelve seconds and that's clearly contrary to it says the time reasonably necessary to determine this and that the check to the checkpoint stop includes the a time reasonably necessary to determine decision citizenship status of the person stopped this would include the time necessary to ascertain the number and identity of the occupants of the vehicle inquire about citizenship status request identification or other people's citizenship and request consent to extend the detention so that it was all happening within the one less than one minute about the duration of the stop and whether there's a permissible programatic purpose of that checkpoint and here we have the amount of time is consistent with the case law on jaimie in which times of less than one minute to ascertain his travel plans and his request and received and permission to perform the docs and again a very routine i mean if you look at dot primary inspection and you see these agents they are moving car after car hundreds and hundreds of cars and something about that car i mean in all of these lines of cars at this agency as you see he's very routine in the way that he does this and just something about it made him ask consent in less than a minute and that is permitted under supreme court and the circuit precedent now i would like to move on to the alternative finding by the district court i do believe that the consent which was the government's primary theory all along clearly supports this consent based  sniffin move to secondary but the court was also properly found and the initial stock created reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff and i would first like to address because these sizeable cases that the defense attached to his motion to suppress and i looked at these cases there are six of them in the record or he just wanted to do one twenty four and again as judge clement noted they were all cases where drugs were found but if you look at the cases agent the i guess is only the primary inspecting agent in one of those cases in all of the cases he's related he might be running the dog or he might be in the secondary but he's not one making the determination of reasonable suspicion so to is the only case where he was on primary  all the other five they're not and the one case that he was involved in and there was no nervousness there was no rental car there was texas plates so all those certain factors i know this whole discussion and profiles is and maybe ten issue with something else but i'm profiles of simply what he's talking about her patterns are factors that way into the to and to tally of circumstances and yes as the supreme court has recognized nervousness can be suggestive of criminal activity it's not indicative it's not alone these generic claims of nervousness is not enough but it's certainly something that the court can consider and we can see these in these cases attached to the motion to suppress so the reason  encourage the court to look at it that oss all we do have reason to suspect it's factors here and it's not based on a profile it's based on and clearly articulated factors such as excessive nervousness and this is not conclusion all nervousness this is not nervousness in isolation this defendant was shaking excessively his left eye was twitching his hands were shaking as he hands over his card illinois versus world law recognizes that nervousness is a factor under the totality of circumstances that the court could have sigurd the defendant seemed unsure of his travel plans he fumbled for words to answer the agent's questions he said he was attending a wedding in dallas but nothing in the car confirmed his story he was driving a rental car which the court found was a significant factor and together all of these factors and warranted a brief extension of the stop to sort of clear up those ambiguity as with the dogs now  u just have one moment though i would just like to also clarify that the court in considering the motion to reconsider did view the video so at the time the court made its determination and reconsidered it did have the benefit of the video i'm not sure that was clear from the argument so if the you must a bill of reasonable suspicion and to have consent to give consent that consent be seen pair when the agent holds a resident card also i would invite you to read the affidavit that agent t security features that doesn't happen and if you can question the truthfulness of that testimony you certainly can't test the truthfulness as to the never snus we've never had an opportunity to test the garcia your case is under submission