it's number eighteen thousand six hundred and six united states of america versus garrett arguments not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr williams may proceed for the i've reserved five minutes of my time resulting in questionable decisions that maybe rubber stamp later by appellate court police officers learn the buzzwords that come out of these cases like officer safety issue  of the circumstances in inventory search sadly some officers don't care about the overarching purposes of the th amendment but instead look for ways to circumvent or steer around the constitution this is that type of case as this quote previously said in united states versus message or mason over lose always a temptation in cases of this nature when a substantial quantity of drugs and far as you're found to let the end justify the means it must be remembered that the courts only see cases in which the conduct of the officer resulted in contraband being found it fosters it fell no drugs district court erred terminating that the stop was justified at its inception and also erred in finding that the stop was not extent or the stop was not extended and necessarily based on the facts as i understand the standard is one in which the court can look at what the district court did for clear air in this case i think based upon the combination of the police report prepared by officer jean and then slater testimony that there are number of inconsistency which would allow this court to find that it was clear to the so it's a credibility finding so we have to apply that deferential standard of review that applies testified he was all over the map with his reasons for this stop he offered other theories for the stop including that mr locke was impeding traffic that he acts or that he's emitted a change in behavior and then finally there was the observation that he had a change in speed so if if you are correct on that argument then the mother then then the whole thing is about the there's no right to look at any of that evidence but what if we decide that the police officer was and will to make a traffic stop no matter what his purpose was which is fairly well the law on this except that you don't have to have so much a clean purpose but you do have to have an actual traffic violation and then you can pull someone over if that's the case when did this because when did this search become unconstitutional your there is a given inconsistency in the record about what exactly happened near the site of that road i think if you look at the police report that was initially prepared and following the evidence in this case it makes clear that by the time that officer team began making a decision about having the canine go around the vehicle and look it over that he had already checked on the license mr laws and had already made that determination so the cases that i've reviewed and have side of the court indicate that i believe the rodrigues kasia are that once that terminations been made the license been checked in in this case the oscars testified that once that was done a very early in the stop he had made the determination to give mr a lot of warning and let him be on his way so what rodriguez tells us is that once that determination been made there should beano further  that life i understood the facts though as the officer went back to his car i don't necessarily know how it works but type something into the computer and was waiting on the results and the results haven't come back in yet and then he read and asked some more questions that would suggest to me that maybe it falls within rodriguez because the purposes of the stop i think under rodriguez what it's still in korea checking the license plate and the license number so what do you what if that was the state of rear of it and talk with me so i would i would say your honor that's the most reliable evidence because what was initially recorded not long after the stop and one in which he later goes on to say that the canine was deployed after that license check could been made so my argument has that i've heard of the trial court's finding though it says while trooper kim was waiting for lots identification to run he returned the lots car and asked them to exit the determination that factual finding was clearly erroneous thank you so we have a number of inconsistency that come out of the stop as i've said the officer already gave several different rodriguez tells us that this is not going to stop we're so much going to be given a warning so a canine should be brought into it all serene for example also says that he didn't even notice anything suspicious about mr law they're basically sitting in the same place waiting for vehicles passed by that day and so he doesn't even see thing worthy of stopping mr law that's not surprising because based on the testimony of officer king we know that frequently the driver drive in all lanes of interstate i simplified in fact we can kind of joke about it and the fact that we're often held up on the interstate by someone who's driving that left hand lane but it's not a matter where people are routinely or frequently pulled over for but in my times run out but i will say that even given that excuse  e it is justified by that point he's already made a determination that he's only going to give mr a lot of warning so no reason to keep him there any longer or ok so the reporting should know unfortunately when it came to the testimony of the hearing the officer wasn't able to tell us an exact amount of time at one point he said he didn't think it was over two minutes but on cross examination he went on to say that it could have been longer than that there isn't in the video or audio here for us to actually determine the amount of time but what we do know is that after he's run the license and after he's already determined that east only going to make a please the court my name is nick grave although i'm here about half of the united states you know honors and my impression of this case is that it boils down to just one issue that district court did not clearly error when it determined that lott violated kentucky law at the time of the stop in other words the district court did not clearly air when they said that trooper king had probable cause to stop a lot he effectively waived the argument that he was not driving in the left hand lane that he was not driving below the speed limit of the cars were not passing him because he never contested that and he doesn't really contest it here either and there's no evidence that you said clear errors and of a legal question whether the facts found by the district court or rise to a bit of a probable cause passing him on the right hand side most that testimony occurs with around page one hundred and ten and the district court relied on that in determining that that's exactly what he was doing and what i think is actually really notable for your honors here is that this court upheld a nearly identical really extended that the testimony is if there's sufficient testimony that kind before the court to explain that timeline i do and in fact i can explain the timeline to you with citations to the record if you'd like  the district court found that all of the stop well i'll just start from the top jerking flagged down trooper rings bream's about a minute after the stops and he sees the guy coming down the flanks and done trooper rames has the driver dog so the drug dog is there the entire time during the stop trooper rames is parked right in front of lot this is on pages one away to one hundred and ten the while waiting on the mobile data terminal information to reveal whether or not there were any outstanding warrants or if there was something wrong with his driver's license lot couldn't provide insurance that day so there were some questions as to that trooper king went back up to lots of car on the passenger side and asked for him to get out he said here's the question before th hit king says after checking lots the writing license which would have been the warrant search right i believe that would be part of it but we aren't and what else would the record indicate was not completed i believe on page one hundred and fourteen dollars he discusses that whenever he went back to speak with lott that he had not yet fact seen any results coming back now will say that there tell me where that is because that was my struggle is being king statement well i didn't release a man telling to have a safe day and travel carefully was due to the fact of his nervousness but we know nervousness is not  nervous that's alone nervousness alone is insufficient that is show me where it seems like it's back and forth i was struggling to see whether the actual question had ever been a asked as to whether there stop  over all of the all of the components related to the reason that he pulled him over had been completed or whether we don't know the answer but you think we know the answer i think we know the answer to that and i would direct the court to and fourteen thousand one hundred and thirty eight of the record and in there it shows that trooper king the way that this proceeded as he walked back up to lots car lot is standing right there behind the car he has not yet gone back now i'll concede that at this point he had not gone back to check again so it's possible that something could have happened but this all occurred said it was about five minutes trooper king said it was no more than ten minutes so this really occurred but that  is the one question i think you have if this evidence is corrected that the results haven't come back that that's part of rodriguez and still without results where i'm going but i guess i do have some question about whether cops could manipulate this arm so suppose they come back with the information typed it into their thing and then as long as i don't go back to a card i'm talking of us individual for forty five minutes but i haven't checked yet so i don't know that it has a comeback so the purposes of the stop what what could you say to me to assuage the concern that if we rule for you in this case we were open up a doctrine that would allow for that type of manipulation like just to basically get around rodriguez by not actually checking to see if the results  come back in your honor i think that's an excellent point and something that i actually asked myself several times when i was coming up to this argument there is another case it's united states vs grid where there is a traffic stop also in kentucky it was  and forty which is one of the statutes that law is alleged to have had probable cause to believe that he violated that traffic stop lasted over an hour and in fact in that case it was because the officers were doing a safety check on the car so they in a sense could have been perceived to have been prolonging the stop in some way but the stop was nonetheless approved because those things were still considered to be necessary to the purposes of the stop which was a traffic safety stop here however what i see  to be particularly pertinent is that there's no evidence in the record that there was any manipulation at all here and i think that's something that should be emphasized is that trooper king when he stopped a lot he went up to him and he was investigating why is this guy soon ervice he knows that there's a child in the back seat of the car and the nervousness was not you know he's nervous because a police officer has stopped him he's nervous he's shaking he's visibly you know touching his face and he's sweating something's not right and he's trying to figure that out and he's engaging with him while he has this static terminal going in the back of his car and he's talking with him for just this brief you would agree that it's the kid that the search has to have been running in the car because if he had already known that there was no warrant can't stand and had completed the search then when he walked back up he should have done what rigorous tells us that authority for the seizure and when the test tied to the traffic infraction are reasonably should have been completed all right that is correct your honor and i think that's probably what we're both asking we're trying to understand it exactly where in the record you say it's clear that the tests incident to the stop had not been completed well the one thing that i would point out too is that as far as the extension of the stop to the drug dog i just want to know this is a matter of fact the drug dog was not deployed until after he had already admitted to having marijuana in the car i mean the way that this proceeded was trooper king goes back up to la he's standing behind the car at this point he says why are you so nervous why do you have anything in the car that i need to be concerned about and he says well could i search your car you seem to be very nervous man search your car and he says no and trooper king says ok that's fine but my colleague right here has this drug dog and he's just going to walk right next to your car if that's all right he said i've got drugs so that to me is really just the crux of the thing is that he's standing there with him it's five minutes ten minutes at the most i would say that this factor of the fact that the war i'm going to call it a warrant minute conversation rather than a five to ten minute count was the excessive yes you're right even so you can have a real i don't know why i didn't go back to check if the conversation to have lasted for a very long term if it's an excessive amount of time i don't think that these facts would justify that no your honor i mean what i see here is that you have an officer who's in good faith investigating the mobile data information and waiting to hear back from that and he goes back up to speak with with mr lott because he's extremely nervous there's a child in the backseat sweat and shaking he's just he's not right and so we asked him some questions and then he admits to having drugs in this all happens so quickly i mean testimony on the five to ten minute thing it's five to ten minutes before the draw dog is running the drug dogs run after he admits to having marijuana so that five to ten minute span is just it's just you know like smoke through a keyhole it happens very quickly your honour's one thing that i would also point out for you is that the progress case i'd like to discuss it with you and that case in particular i do think is important because you know the district court in that case found that there was probabl officer observed mr paradis driving a left lane at a slow speed on i seventy five and he stopped and he stopped him because he was driving the left lying to slow speed while cars were passing him on i seventy five and this court held that stop because they often noted in fact that any thoughts that the officers may have entertained about drug running for would not foreclose a stop that would have otherwise been objective lee reasonable that's the exact fact that we have here we have someone who's violated a traffic law we can't say in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the district court clearly erred in finding that there was probable cause to initiate this stop there's no evidence to show that lott was not driving a left hand lane there is no evidence to show that lott was not driving under the speed limit there is when exactly trooper king said to lott i'm not going to give you a citation that's on page one hundred and forty five of the record he doesn't recall whether it was when he st stopped lot or whether it was after he had already gone back to write his information and come back up to ask him to go eight but then what i would say we don't know is we don't know exactly when he got that information back from the model mobile data database and the reason why we don't know that is just because it was never revealed in the record but what we do know is that he didn't have that information at the time that a lot admitted to having drugs which was before the drug dog was run around the car which at the most was ten minutes after the stop probably closer to what i feel is a reliable a piece of evidence and that's the narrative prepared by officer king himself and if i may just quickly for the court  he says again after checking lots operators license are proceeded back to the vehicle and asked him step out of the vehicle and come to the rear and talk to me once law to ride back to me x plane the reason for asking him step out of the vehicle i told him he had pulled over too close to the white and then a lot began to exhibit this behavior he saying is touching his face dredging doing these things he described as nervous the officer goes on to say that he stated to mr lott at that point he had a canine there to assist and that he started breathing heavily even told him he would use the dog to conduct a freer sniff around the vehicle he began rubbing his head breathing heavily then he stated he had a little bit of personal use marijuana so there is evidence there as to that that kind of the sequence of events as opposed to the exact timing of it but you owners can use common sense to determine that all these events happening in sequence took some time and after he's been told that he will only be issued a warning at that point he should be allowed to leave and go on because we've already we've already agreed that nervousness is not enough to keep him there for any longer before i forget it i do want to ask the court i can walk or motion pursuant to it has the facts somewhat similar to this and if if the court will allow us i provided that case to counsel for the united states if you would allow us to do a short supplemental brief or a letter regarding that think your honor i do briefly just want to address a couple of the cases that the united states has raised in their brief in here an argument one is the case of united states versus  and i would say you are in that case factually very distinguishable from the case here because in that case under a k or a statute to any one sim fifty five they were actually allowed as part of that stop to conduct a link the inspection of the truck so the statute allowed them to keep that truck there longer in make that complete inspection and then on the prez case relied upon by the united states we know in this case our officer testified much differently than the officer did in this case one of the things the court relied upon in the prison case was the officer said i stopped folks going or driving in the left hand lane all the time the testimony in our case was quite the contrary the officer said i drive in the lift in the lane i very infrequently stop people from driving in the left hand lane if i stop people from driving a left hand lane i'd be stopping people all day long every day the other thing i think is  case is that unlike our case this officer gave one particular reason for a stop driving the left hand lane in our case switch to story many times about why that stop occurred so there was a reason for the person to be kept there a while because that person had a warrant that had to be checked out and it also may have in that case the prist case created more reasons for suspicion