our next case in the morning if united states against stewart with a few moments at the end for the miranda issue of time permits the district court's admission of almost all the physical evidence in this case violated the supreme court's twenty fifteen decision and rodriguez versus united states and the dog sniff that led to the discovery of that evidence much of that evidence was not independent ordered by reasonable suspicion mr stewart was stopped for a traffic violation running a red light and under rodriguez that means the permissible length of his detention was to allow the officer to address the tasks or excuse me to allow the office you complete the task to address that traffic violation and here officer ball addressed many of those tasks he were counsel rodrigo says stop may be extended if the extension is supported by reasonable suspicion wasn't that criterion met here we don't believe so you clubs and as we explain our if we find that basically this boils down to a sighting of mr stewart that mr collins furniture store which is a public furniture store a mere five minutes i believe he said in our library from his house in october twenty fourth another sighting of mr stewart in december twenty fourth he and neither time was mr stewart who served involved in any sort of illegal or drug activity and then the fact that an informan know raise by the gas station and and and counter the reasons they were following him in the first place and the nervousness when you combine all the factors plus the ones that you just mentioned  deal just just do not add up to reasonable suspicion now in a horror second didn't the officers have circumstantial evidence through training experience in the fact that stewart was under investigation for drug trafficking offense that he felt that he just witnessed a drug having fans i mean this guy pulls up to the gas station store pulls up another guy pulls up he gets out of his car in the stewart's car for a couple minutes gets back in the other car and takes off you don't even pump gas that's standing by itself might not be enough but the fact is stewart was already being under suspicion what would a good circumstantial evidence which is which officers are allowed to use raise reasonable suspicion and then if there's reasonable suspicion doing neither need to address the rodriguez issue well your honor if there's reason to take your final point first if there's reasonable suspicion then and the talks that supported in this case we don't believe there was reasonable suspicion it is true that mr stewart i was under investigation but he was under  he was under surveillance for i am i'm not going to tell you you for a time but i suspect you may be better off moving to your other issues so your are in that case  reviewing deferentially the findings of the district judge well your honor we we believe the proper standard of review is no violence case because in this on this  i have to tell you that i listened to that audio recording and officer paul's response to stewart's had not really sounded like a question rather than a statement and the district court seems to have to agree you know with the government's choice of punctuation if officer polls response was  question instead of a confirmatory state then how does your argument change  so i think that officer you see in response to that question stewart said i'm cold and i'd like to be placed in a car  course which he was and then he's taken to the police station and re actors were going to come to him come talk regardless frankly i think the most natural understanding of that phrase is that he understood that mr stewart communicated that he did not want to talk to detectives otherwise it doesn't really i don't believe make as much sense to say that the tech tips were going to come talk to him regardless of what he just communicated and as for mr stewart's request to be put in the car the government's response brief in the case that was a request for a venue change we just don't simply just don't believe that is the case and it was january in indianapolis it was between thirty and forty one degrees out an officer vault us five the suppression hearing mr  he shook his head no because he was kind of frustrated with brady ball not because he was invoking his right to remain silent and he seemed willing to talk to the to the other place when there doesn't that show you wasn't invoking his fifth oh the excuse we're honored the other point i want to make briefly was that there are the government does cite a piece of trial or of testimony where all of mr stewart is explaining that he doesn't was shaking his head at brady ball because he was remainder of my time  either way the district court on page three and page nine of it's order transcribed that check the ball state in with the question mark which i think emphasizes that that is a factual finding the district court and that was ambiguous but you know of twice tells what their officers said stewart does not want to talk to detectives so that makes it appear as if the officer understood that the head not was his indication of his right to be silent so what on the record gets you past these two problems the search for taking those in order first of all sergeant ball the first statement about mr stewart not wanting to talk he said that in context he thought he did mr stewart didn't want to talk in public and detect a ball explain why that drug dealers often don't want to talk in public on the street because they don't once this any one of their colleagues would think they're informing on them so w that he took that as an understanding that mr stewart would speak just not in public and everything that mr stewart said and did after that corroborated that fact as to the second point your honor sergeant paul was i think simply saying that i'm not going to be the one bringing you and the detectives are going to talk to you talk to you book you and i don't think that was a way of saying they're going to interrogate you regardless but they are going to be the ones taking you to the station and bringing you in which is fine i think certainly under this stepping it back a little bit from that i would stress that certainly we understand that often times and missions or confessions are the most salient evidence but i think it's really important here to view that his statement in context of the evidence the government had mr stewart was caught with two thousand grams of cocaine seven hundred grams of heroin one thousand grams of meth of methamphetamine one hundred grams of crack five hundred thousand dollars in cash five guns money letters fifteen his fingerprints fourteen times on the drugs there was no credible defense whatsoever so his admission to whatever extent it was or was not admissible of course we think it was admissible it certainly was harmless  because there is no credible defense to mr stewart's intent to deal that cornucopia of drugs if you will but what if stewart had said out loud no when asked if he wanted to talk to with that change your argument yes that would be an adamant unambiguous request to remain silent if that had happened the officers in this case should have stopped talking to him of course it didn't happen and apparent headshake as judge gilbert pointed out there's no case all saying that that is an unambiguous and location of the right to remain silent so taking your hypothetical yes that would be the exact sort of thing the supreme court has said police must stop questioning but that did have in that case respected his initial right to remain silent that may become a little trickier case but we think that would be sufficient to as an initial respecting of his right to remain  silent but certainly here when you have an idea and an ambiguous apparent head night which we heard today it's undisputed that it was only an apparent had not the police officers under both the supreme court and this court's precedent in fact this court is encourage officers to inquire further and make sure whether the police suspect was invoking his right to remain silent so really the officers here did exactly what this court has said they should do in this situation and from my reading of the court i'm not sure if there was any necessary for me to go into the rodriguez issue i'd be happy to answer questions on that or anything about this issue of counsel i am i'm worried about the money wondering convictions or the prosecution in this case seems to be another example of the department of justice was belief that anything anybody dose with drug proceeds must be money  i'm uncertain walk in light of our decision even as we think this case clears the bar of s truman i would point to three things first mr stewart created a sham company in two thousand and twelve even that have to do with any that the hole in your estimate as i understand it is it is not money laundering to put money into your own account because that's not hiding correct as linked to you so why is it money laundering just because it was a shell corporation that's no different from a personal bank account there's no corporation attached to that no business but it's still your  but certainly if that was the only factor this would be an eastern problem however it's beyond that mr stewart also took shady financial steps he had other parties deposit checks he engaged in this ruse with a friend of his where he gave the money that had that friend deposit checks from his business into his counsel looked like a business was paying mr hope you were going to be confident that that was the basis of the jury's conviction under the jury instructions what was necessary to convict him was it necessary to show that he was actually trying to hide the prob annoyance of the money or was it sufficient that he just deposited the money into the account it was required that he was attempting to conceal or disguise the proceeds that that's certainly true your honor but again and then after that he used those that those deposits to buy a car so he turned illicit proceeds into a facially valid asset and that should help show that it was designed to conceal or we have not only the steps they took to make the business so it's a little more than just a personal account like esther and we have the financial chicanery with jamie and manual we have the weird third party checks coming in and then we have him benefiting from that he mr stewart gets a loan from purported income from his business that never had any income to buy a motorcycle and he also funneled the money in to the business and bought a company car for the business for almost twenty thousand dollars which we know those assets were illicit so we think in that situation this is nuff to qualify for the s truman standard so it's not it's a it's more than just putting your own money into your own county and spending it he took extra that that may be right and of course as i understand the defendant's position he's not challenging the jury instructions times to be saying that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law even if the instructions were followed i believe that to be the case you know it's mr waxman that to make sure i understand the or i believe that to be your case your honor we'd also point out that underestimates to mr stewart an object of this so this is plainer of you and to whatever extent this is a close call and if the court does think it's a close call i suppose that's understandable we don't think it's so we don't think that's plainer and if mr stewart may need to make some more sales order to cover those yes i think i mean he certainly had enough cash on hand to cover that one hundred dollars i think the court has no further  you can't go home oh well i'm going to back nick i know that that's what i mean you're staying and it appears that officer bull took a few seconds to call back up forty five i'm going to answer your question but i have to start with an aside that under rodriguez the reasonable suspicion in this case drives it so it makes it ok either way but with that said answering your question i suppose it turns into something of an academic question of what robert wright rodrigue we don't think rodriguez can be read that narrowly where because rodriguez does not proport to overrule illinois versus good byes so there must be a way for officers at the scene to run a dog this would be one of the easiest least intrusive ways to do so and i think it mr stewart's argument on this front requires the court to find that two officers discussing how to write a traffic ticket is not traffic related because of it's traffic related it doesn't violate rebus and here the delay the purported delay that mr stewart has pointed to is two officers discussing a traffic ticket so we would think that the officer in the rodriguez situation do you think an officer needs to intentionally prolonged stall we would say that would be a factor i would say there's two ways i think it's clear that an officer would violate rodriguez first would be the rodriguez where an officer completes the traffic ticket and holds the suspect or the driver longer to run the dog he said to intentionally doing that intentionally doing it the other way i think the fourth circuit decision and hill i suppose the hypothetical where an officer intentionally slows down the time and is not diligent in order to run a dog i think that would fall under the situation  that it's an objective standard and individual characteristics of a specific officer do not turn on that does not drive the fourth amendment so fourth amendment rights violations don't turn on individual characteristics of the officer and defendants or drivers in general are entitled entirely reasonable that police forces would train officers on the scene just because as a rookie officer that takes a little bit longer that doesn't make it a constitutionally finally what if you were really stupid well can you imagine twenty minutes later that the touchstone of the fourth amendment is always reasonable and so i suppose there could be a come a point in time where an officer was so incompetent that it became a reasonable we certainly don't think that's a forty five seconds and we would end by just saying on that here we know the traffic stop under rand was constitutional the ticket was constitutional calling for backup was constitutional and the docs in it under illinois  honor thank you i'll start with the rodriguez questions that were read and just say that i want to be clear about our argument rodriguez which is not that officer ball could have been more efficient or that there's something unconstitutional on training officers the fact is is that the forty five to fifty two seconds that officer ball spent explaining how to write the ticket was soley to enable the dogs  prolong the traffic stop it added time to the traffic stop and under rodriguez that sort of prolongation means that the resulting dog sniff and the evidence turned up was unconstitutional so so i mean are you saying that the other officer really knew and no not not at all there we don't you know this is an objective standard as has the government has communicated we're not implying anything about anybody's motivations but the fact is is that officer paul stated three times on the tape that the reason he wanted the backup officer come to the scene was so that he could run his talk and so the reason the backup officer was there at all was to enable the dogs and so officer paul stopped the traffic stop the normal progression of factors of the traffic stop for forty five to fifty two seconds in order to to explain how to write the ticket was just a function of the dog stuff really and so that's our argument under rodriguez your honour's that that's the the basic holding of rodriguez is that anything that home on just a traffic stop for the purposes of criminal investigation i are you contending that the jury instructions on the money laundering carol were incorrect you know your honor we have all i raised asked him an issue and she's basically sufficiency o on one singer your honor if the government appointed to what is termed the overwhelming evidence for the government needs to deal with the case in which it presented and why singer we think is directly on point in that regard regardless of what you know how much other evidence the government relied heavily heavily on this compassion deflated during its case in chief it stress again during its closing the court the supreme press recognized confessions are extremely moving evidence and so your honor i see my time's about to expire if i can just wrap up we believe that because that is the case the government actually presented why singer is the case that points to why this is not