stopped him from taking his oral consent to search but the circumstances were a bit unusual agent was actually a drug interdiction agent retain mr prouse his driver's license instructed him to sit in the front seat of the patrol car and then in the presence of another agent peppered him with questions about his i ten riri his ownership of the truck and whether there was contraband in the truck all before asking for mr promises consent deter to search so the question i case is whether the consent was voluntary mr prowess argues the district court erred in evaluating and weighing the factors that a court must consider in deciding this question especially the factor concerning the presence of coercive police the government but only slightly one of them is the extent and the level that that is cooperation with the police yes mr prouse was cooperative but this factor only marginally weighs in favor of the government because as his daughter testified the suppression hearing is not the type of person who would confront the police officer or argue with somebody with a badge he's a compliant person very respectful person and this also comes across when you watch the video of the stop he's very submissive to the age it is the second factor that weighs slightly in favor of the government is the defendant's education and intelligence although he has no legal training he did receive a high school level education in mexico so this factor weigh slightly in the government's favor there's no evidence that he's a person of below average intelligence and the third that weighs slightly in favor of the government is that if it is believed the new incriminating evidence will be fair this case is this factors almost neutral because there was no testimony on this the engine so that factor weighs a little bit in favor of the government so we'll give them that but our position is that those three factors are outweighed by the ones that are the most important factors which are the ones that really have to do with the defendant's ability to make an informed decision one is the volunteer in his of his defeat custodial status and the agent in this case testified that when he asked mr prosper consent to search he was still not free to go so we he didn't know that if you ask someone something with a presumption that they can say no can i search your car like you can search the car without him getting consent because touch the car on it say well that's an issue but he was ease not aware that you could say defendant stay in the minivan while running the peter checks preparing warning the government will say this is about convenience this is just the officer want to input information into the computer so it should be just about his convenience well our position is that's not persuasive this agent's not an ordinary traffic cop he's a drug interdiction agent he sees this opportunity to question mr prowess for over eight minutes more than twenty questions about his i brief argued that adds info to come of course in this situation that you have an additional officer sitting in the back seat there that that adds to it that's one of the many factors in this case that a consequence of factors that make this a is our best case that's a case that not only using an example of a case where a defendant was allowed to sit in his own vehicle while the computer checks are being run not put in car also that was a case where as here the the agent what basically withheld retained the driver's license when he asked for consent to search and cab it is court stated that retaining a persons license suggests coercion retention of aliens identification documents when he asked for from mission suggested coercion in that case his court said the card was vital to the defense legal presence in this country without it his disposition if indeed not his ability to decline the agent's request expectedly was significantly impaired so here to mr prowesses ability to decline the agent's request to consent was significantly impaired by the fact that this basis for the ticket center versus those cases where the computer check itself may take some period of time in the offices none the less the the continuing to talk and cetera et cetera the save the tempora whether it's a longer not and cabbage case that we relied on does not make that distinction around which is the case the government has cited does not make that distinction in fact in cavite the court couldn't determine whether it was a reasona the questioning in the patrol car the retaining the i sense the presence of a second agent and the interrogation in the length of the questioning even though it might have been waffle this is why we didn't raise our argument here that this stop was unlawful don't know when the the computer checks came back that didn't come out in the testimony that the officer said i'd have to look at the my screens or whatever we did we couldn't really tell him that you know we were not implying that the district court but we're not arguing now that the the descriptions being peppered anything like normal questions and then well met many of these questions are not normal you know about the other hidden weapons cash money there's no marijuana nothing there's no cocaine heroin anything you know that's the that's later in his questioning but there's questions before that i mean it starts off with who's truck is this how long have you had it where you coming from what are you doing in brownsville where you going what type of work your on normal line of questioning it's extensive for a case with the back and the guys you know feeling his own you know or butin well it's a break like stop and you've made a lot out of these war because most of the other cases involved you argue makes this case or just stand out from the heartland of other cases where we've said you know it's not inherently courses that that yes yes and more and the length of the questioning  you say no they're not normal ordinary questions they are you know questions designed to get some so ok then we got it  just to straighten out the facts a little bit this wasn't just a tail light stop with nothing else prompter as questions the initial check on the registration came back to someone named the drano so when mr produces a driver's license with the paralysing that's something that agents ms needs to investigate the initial radio check before the car stopped happens also says that the insurance status is unconfirmed at the time  traffic stops asks mr promise to step back into his car so that they can sit there together while the gentleman is completes the computer screens that he has to to issue a warning in here the district court made a specific fact dealt much with the of fact if at all of having a defendant in the front seat torres burundi is the only case that i found that was dead on point for that your honor we think that this court came to an appropriate conclusion there it was so that agents mez could have the back and forth necessary both to investigate the ownership and the insurance status of the vehicle and so that he complete those screens that need to be done for the break late morning i wouldn't adopt the word pepper mr barton can use that but it does seem to me that the questions go away afield from the purpose ostensible purpose of an engine that in itself create anxiety worry pressure or a record of the last word or human does seem to be adding to the pressures on the defendant of this court has never to my knowledge addressed questioning as creating estimate consent involuntary certainly addressed the question of questions by an agent during a traffic stop in should boz when his court held that the questions themselves are not problematic as long as they don't extend the stop beyond its constitutionally permissible time limit that's what was going on here and that last set of something of about that one thing to say that we haven't addressed and in motion shows something else to say that if you stop for a traffic offense the concerns on the part of whoever is being questioned just sort of hard to ignore the nature of the question it certainly heightens concerns if one has that bottom that's going to make you nervous it was some automatic weapons of the truck or a ton of cocaine i mean a dirty to me that all of that i did take a certain extreme example but it does seem to me that these other questions stepping back from that are also heighten the concern of the of the driver and i think there's a difference between heightening  that one's will is overboard and they don't feel able to say no i suspect mr paralysis was nervous an agent to miss thought he was nervous whenever they asked that last series of questions about drugs and just to address that quickly those questions about weapons narcotics those all fall leave the district court made a finding on this within the last few seconds of the interaction it's a page of the the transcript of the interaction between agents and meds and mr paralysis yes he might have been nervous that those three kilos of cocaine hidden in the engine were going to be found that doesn't make it coercive and that's really that's one of the factors that this court has laid out in the six factor test is how likely is it that the defendant how likely does the defendant believe it is that the contraband is going to be found here mr perales had good reason to think that it wouldn't be found given how well it was a pretty good place to hide drugs because there's not hidden compartment edict i would not add to the public through this willingness to pursue questions about drugs yes i think agents best listed quite a few things that mr martin's argument really turns on trying to draw a bright line rule that seeking consent while still holding on to documents during the course of a traffic stop is court rejected that with respects to being advised of the right to refuse consent there's no reason for imposing a single factor test here of the kind that mr martin has to rely on and i would say if you have this is the best case for the defense position that's pretty weak support because in cabot what this court wound up saying was this needs to go back for a hearing so that the district court it was in the context of a twenty to fifty five cents a district court can make a determination about how valid this suppression claim was if retaining documents was the kind of bright line automatic abortion that mr martin suggests this court would have said this needs to go back for a hearing this court would have said counsel clearly rendered ineffective assistance the police officers held on to defendants documents therefore there was a valid suppression factory distinguishable reynolds is one of those and in rentals this court found that asking for consent in connection with saying you're going to be free to go i forget the exact wording but it was something like to just search your truck before you go was coercive because it implied you won't be free to go until we service that truck and that's not what happened here there's a mention at the beginning of the stop regarding agent mez issuing a warning he then asks for consent completely separate from that there is no implicit tie between the consent and receiving the warning receiving a warning versus a ticket so here that just wouldn't wouldn't affect pol so forth because of nature ok corrector guy got it arc and what was the deal about offset in the back nano he said he testified he to miss just by sort of this was his routine in terms of putting people in was  testimony because i did read all about having a second officer you know in the bag of safety or something else so was that part of the normally that just happened in this case it is most testifies that if you know you're between these two people in asking the questions but i didn't remember them and that's not being argued here don't get me wrong he doesn't argue that as a factor the other officer the other officers kind of hardly mentioned because t miss it was sort of his routine you know put people in front i was just curious whether that included having a second officer in the back or somewhere as part of his quote team he doesn't mention that routine but because i'm chicken to computer can't keep my eyes on suspect i have another person then and that's what i would have expected i mean there whether true or not i would expect that to be the initial statement about why you know that is but conspicuous to me that was not you know ordered and so that's what made me wonder whether in this case it just happened that the other officer because he's not mentioned as doing anything asking new questions or anything else is just physically there keep he wasn't during the video asking any questions there is and i would disagree with the characterization being with questions this certainly was not a hot bench in the car with two people firing questions at mr perales and just from  at the end of the day to prevail mr ellis has to show that it wasn't plausible that he voluntarily consented and he just can't meet that standard it is entirely plausible that he says will was not overboard well in this context what we're talking about or isn't really talking about in the sense of compelling and after choice we're not talking about you know overcoming somebody will look with  e bright lights and rubber hoses the way you think of that way it's good if you look at chavez theory out there that stands really for the proposition that coercion in this context is something that significantly impairs a person's which is the case that it cites and it's brief as i said in opening it's not on all fours because the reason why it was ok in that case for the deputy to put the defendant in the front seat at the patrol was because he needed spanish language interpretation that was truly that's a legitimate reason he could not speak with me and need to get on the phone and and have a time or station on the phone with a to spend speaking we don't have that here o are somebody should who front for whatever reasons fit in your cage those could be equally affecting the will of the a person in question well that's true but i think not not necessarily because i think in a case where  an officer needs said speak with someone in spanish then that definit would clearly understand why he's sitting there and it's because i can't communicate this person and we need to talk with through an intermediary it's not a situation where you've got somebody in the front seat of the car and you're asking them questions about whether there's drugs in there and even though you can communicate perfectly that's that's our position you're honest the government says we're looking for a bright line rule bright line rule that holding on to it's not about whether it's ok for the officer to hold onto the license while he's completing stop as it were asked that question starkest and how did you get this individual's consent to the search if you're holding on to his license while you're also asking questions and have him in the front seat of the car and at it after you've already you know sort of gotten in your car telling him you're just going to get a warning and then not let you go which we think is just as coercive as in the robertson case where that was that was