the officer's mission had ended and all the actions that were taken there after prolonged the stop and made the stop illegal the officer in it he could have just sat in his squad and damn point and waited for the tone truck to appear and then he's done exactly that in the so the officers after the fact justification that he was investigating a traffic stop that was presented for the st time and the hearing in this matter several months later should not be accepted by this court so mr donovan  mike my question is is it your position that the police officer with the car in the ditch during the snowstorm offended the st amendment by asking for a form of identification or put differently doesn't it's not knowledge that violates the th amendment some act that he took what's the act that he took that violated the th amendment so the act i think it is twofold this court has sent in noble cases at this si our brief that when they take when police take a person's documents and they need to go on their way and give commands that indicate their compliance may be compel pass a seizure so i believe when he took their driver's licenses and identifications to determine whether or not the seizure was legal is limited to when it occurred nothing then occurred after no matter how compelling can justify that the seizure at that point ringback i think he has with the officer has he has a car detention just see if there's been any traffic violations like for instance is the driver intoxicated with you know so they run the license to see  off that road and into it which i don't believe so he did not observe the cars going off the road he didn't know if that was related to a traffic violation he said he st average many caretaker again that result almost immediately and  seizing them and for taking their identification and telling them to stay in the car it in here to no traffic stop he didn't mention any reports that he wrote it and not tell any of the other responding officers on scene amount of suspicion a traffic was running through his mind are not running through his mind because again there's no indication that there is any investigation of traffic violations here and someone can spin off the road and be in the snow without one  that her question is so what what is he to do he sees a car in the ditch in these circumstances they say with call the tow truck officer he supposed to get his car and drive alon think he does what he says he's done before with other people in this situation he goes back to his squad and we can see is that they get out ok and it's not you so your position has to be that the th amendment compels that that his constitutional rights are violated point where he had no basis to seize them and that's exactly what he did by taking their ids and indicating that they had to comply by staying in the vehicle and going back and running things and that point it was resolved he should've gotten back in a squad car confirm that you know if you want to that old truck comes and gets them out in there and that and that's that they are with the police they check the driver's license plates even without a reasonable suspicion for you know for example also said during that sergeant to happen interview and this is important i don't know what ever you just found in the car is mine everything you've found in the car is mine he had nothing to do with it end of quote and in response to sergeant tippens further questioning she's that regarding any criminal items found in the car she declared quote mine now those statements were made as by way of a operative in the government's motion and women but also in the defense proper now that the real question here falls down to whether the court the district court erred in application of rule of evidence eight o four b three under that rule of hearsay statement may be admissible in a criminal condition it criminal case rather it be conditions are met first the current is unavailable as a went as nd the statement was against it a clearance penal interest when made and corroborating circumstances clearly suggest that the statement is trustworthy now it's recognized that the proponent and law would be the proponent of the hearsay they've been bears the burden of demonstrating that each of these elements is satisfied your honors it is a lot of submission before this court that he not only met those three conditions for it mission of the hearsay statements but he ceded those and that's because of the special circumstances of this case now to be more precise it is lousy believe that the district court erred because was just getting underway on october th two thousand and nineteen outside the presence of the jury the district court granted the government's motion in limine he's seeking to bar the admission of chang's out of court statements  rejecting allows arguments in his response pleading that feed is a little bit blurry on our end i'm sorry your honor of look at him no need to apologize just we want to make sure we don't miss your point y district court reasoned that chang statements that the drugs quote were mine end of quote did not fit the definition of statements against your interests the district court noted that chang had pled guilty but all of this occurred before or chiang took the witness stand when chuang took the stand under oath the district's court's analysis should have changed for attorney donovan at that point was representing chang in court now later that same day and this is important chang is called to the stand again now according to the government's trial oath in response to a question from attorney mitchell she says she will invoke her th amendment right not to incriminate herself but in response to a question from the district court she expresses a belief that she is being threatened she goes on to say quote and this quote is it very important to laos position quote that wasn't my gun i'm taking ownership of the drugs it's  mine i can provide proof they have my cell phone i can obviously unlock it i can provide you guys valuable information on the whole operation of operation on the drugs and when the district court asked her if it's your intention to testify in this case or exercise your th amendment right to avoid self incrimination she says at that point my intention is to take ownership of all of the drugs the gun is not mine though i didn't have no knowledge of the guns ok mr hunt thanks steve i think we've under we understand your position and appreciate your argument this morning let's hear from mr cain egg on behalf of the government and here are good morning my name is jonathan cohen and i care on behalf of the united states this morning the court should affirm a defendant's convictions because there was no th amendment violation warranting suppression of the drugs or the gong found in the defendant's car and because the district judge correctly found the changs hearsay statements exonerating while lacked corroborating circumstances that clearly indicated they're trustworthy d it's as the st issue i'm puzzled by my opponent's reliance on the road gets case that was  supreme court decision involving a dog sniff in which the officers after they had completed issuing a traffic citation had everybody wait while they brought a dog  sniffing dog to the scene and the supreme court said you couldn't do that at least not without reasonable suspicion of drug activity and that wasn't what happened in our case factually but more importantly justice ginsburg writing for the court explained that there are ordinary and permissible incidence of a traffic stop like this one  specifically if the officer can check the driver's license determine whether there's any outstanding warrants a look at the insurance card and so court the court said that these measures serve the same objective as an oarsman of the traffic code ensuring that vehicles are operating safely on the road as the d rodrigues court also made clear these measures are appropriate to protect officer safety and i'm quoting here from retrogress rodriguez and officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete its mission safely d this court said very much the same thing  chang had a flat tire with us a series of had reason to check for warrants in prior criminal history i'm not sure that he would have your honor because there wouldn't be any indication in that scenario d traffic violation here there was a car was spun out on the side of the road and so there was at least evidence of a possible traffic violation that the officer was entitled to investigate if somebody were merely replacing a tire and they weren't on the shoulder or otherwise committing any sort of violation and said to the officers we have everything in hand again a most people would be nervous to read if their car had just one of the highway into a ditch what made these two different  from other people who had just been in an accident well i believe the record reflects that some period of time has elapsed since the accident i want to say forty five minutes my colleagues will correct me if that's wrong so they had some time to calm down but they were calm and again the government is not arguing that the officer could detain them for being nervous i want to be very clear about that well the officer testified that usually people are glad to see him and of course you can imagine situations where that's not true and i've tried not to invest too much of my argument in the nervousness because again i don't think that comes into play until after the officer learns about there is three and then it's permissible for him to put two dollars and two dollars together under totality test and say maybe i need to get another officer on the scene maybe i need to do a little more conan at the risk of oversimplification why does the th amendment analysis not begin and end with an officer's ability under the th amendment when he sees a car  to approach the car and among among other things making sure people are safe ask for their driver's license why is that not reasonable within the meaning of the th amendment why do we have to ask a question about suspicion or a lack thereof of illegal conduct well i think i think it is that simple here you have both  a safety irrationalities investigating whether these people are ok and also whether they spent a traffic violation so from the government's point of point of view there's nothing unreasonable about the brief detention at all it becomes a longer detention as i indicated earlier when the some of these factors come together in a way it would be and it's unreasonable though for a police officer who wants to assist somebody with a flat tire to say sure i'm happy to help you can you show me your driver's license and i'll be right back to help  you know and they as a practical matter reasonable this being the touchstone of any th amendment inquiry we don't want to make these situations too complicated for officers because we want them to help people and we want them to enforce the traffic go i mean to in fairness to mr donovan and mr hunt there is no question that there is a difficult line and identifying where that line is crossed the tween when law enforcement ceases undertaking action in the name of this community caretaker function that the supreme court has recognized and when we start to enter terry i think that is a difficult line but here when you're talking about people in ditches or cars tipped over or people just you know pulled over on the side of a highway it seems plenty reasonable for a police officer to stop instead of keep driving and then as one of the st activity she or he undertakes to ask for a form of identification and that's all we have in front of us in this fact pattern know my my the only reason i'm observing the comment is you can you tended you tend i now understand why i'm not criticizing you you wonder you tended drift toward this notion that there's a statute on the books that prevents hazardous driving and i understand why you want to point to that and the reason i'm pressing you a touch on this is my question is does the th amendment even require you to go that far in a situation where you have a car an a n and a police officer driving by that sees it right and i'm not trying to avoid your question about it because i think because we did have evidence of a possible traffic violation in this case i didn't do a lot of research and community care taking function and i you know the hypothetical the judge wrote in or asked was about somebody who was having mechanical difficulties which again would be different because presumably nobody is hurt in that situation right but if somebody is going off the side of the road presumably want police officers to check that out and see it make sure everyone's d ok there's no doubt about that people that pull over because  absolutely you know and again i'm drifting into terry land here but there's all kinds of reasons people could spend out on the side of the road including drunk driving which was mentioned earlier d and stopping to investigate that i think just to return to a point that i was making earlier that rodriguez helps the government in this case it's not a case that particularly helps problem the defendants and i would invite you to read what the court set of pages three hundred and fifty five  case because one might imagine that safety and care oriented highway patrol service whose only job was to ensure that cars were in trouble safety and in that case there would be no reason to run someone strivers license or plates before offering assistance roadway and it would seem that that in and of itself would justify a brief detention to see if there had been any traffic violations as i noted earlier know it's possible to hypothesize innocent reasons that a car could spin out during a snowstorm i bet happened to me without any you know conduct on my part but you say but that's what i  i'm sticking with that story joe biden under the reasonable suspicion standard of course the officers don't have to you know assume that the innocent explanation is the only one  trial judge we think the ruling was absolutely correct and because it was correct it can't be an abuse of disc but it certainly isn't one that should strike you as fundamentally wrong  there's a bunch of reasons to regard these hearsay statements as unreliable they contradicted each other they were internally inconsistent and they were made by someone with a  i'm hearing on the court thank you mr cohen again that some returned to mr donovan you've got just under two minutes thank you your honor just to be clear we don't quibble with the fact that the officer stopped to investigate and check on their safety we agree that that was appropriate and as something that we want police to do and i think we agree with the government there and we get spares careful reading and sort of address both the government's question or our puzzlement and and that's great we want that he confirmed they were not in harm no injuries there is a reasonable suspicion of them point to take their identification in order them to stay in the car and actually a legal action occurred because under  mission ended and should have stopped so i just i guess i want to clarify then i agree with the governor every guest bears careful reading but we think it's of course honest nat not supports the government i don't know of any times left for attorney hunt but i don't want to take rebuttal if he has anything else they are mr hart you used your time but we'll give you a minute if you have a point or so you want to make to us in closing favor with the authorities what makes my case different laus case different is he makes this or chang makes these statements on the stand under oath corroborating what she yce mails here lawwell was in a court room under oath corroborated so i think they were trustworthy ok thank you for all counsel the court will take the case under advisement