the trial court order some missing evidence the issue in this case is whether an officer shane and violated defendant's fourth amendment rights i'm reasonably prolonging a traffic so it is usable that useful to set a separate fourth amendment search as defendant had no legitimate privacy interest in information of whether he had a valid license it is also undisputed that before defended the defendant stated that he had no license was justified in its inception involved no separate fourth amendment search and was very brief mag maybe take it back as to why do you say that there was no privacy interest in established that there is no privacy interest in public information it is information that is public whether you whether a driver is badly driving what it is and since i assume that you're talking about for example here swear that the issue was a warrant check isn't there some distinction between the police officer going to a computer and looking into a computer and trying to find out what information is and the officer engaging in this conversation and demanding documents from the defendant well first of all your honor the cases like harris like hebel stablish that there's simply no fourth amendment interest in a request for identification at best for your name the relevant encoding and once that occurs the only question with respect to whether it's a separate fourth amendment seizure is whether there is a some sort of separate legitimate fourth amendment subject of the arrest warrant anything besides immediately telling the defendant that he was free to go i was per se reasonable in other words the defendant asked this court to adopt a new bright line rule that for any traffic stop once the purpose of the stop is effectuated any comment further comments question our action aside from telling the defendant that he's free to go is a fourth amendment violation at this club d decided to give the driver a written warning but in the meantime the officer engaged in several actions that were not absolutely necessary to give him a speeding  asked defendant if you could search the car he asked the defendant to feed ever been arrested in fact he had a completely car on his a police radio with another officer on a completely unrelated matt so and yet nevertheless the illinois courts first held that the duration was was reasonable was justified and the united states supreme court had no trouble accepting that justification so the cent cases that defendant relies on for this bright line rule simply do not uphold that harris is another good example and that case there was the request for a license of the passenger and a warrant check on the state id that was provided and robin that is another good example in that case the officer had pulled the drive over for speeding had done the background check and then decided to give the driver verbal reprimand return his license with whatever board and only then decided to ask if the for if the driver had anything illegal macartney he could perform a seizure the supreme court is faced with the issue of whether th this officer had to inform the driver that he was free to go before pursuing the consent of the supreme court rejected that argument and found that it that it didn't there was no magic bright line rule here that once the purpose was effectuated the verbal reprimand given there was some sort of immediate need to inform the driver that he was free to go and also simply wouldn't make sense that kind of rule that we can consider a counterfactual example here i imagine that if instead of immediately getting out of the car asking for the license to survive and had stayed in his car had a upcoming chatting and said that they would be free to go that would pass the test under under defendant's view because there would still have been something left to do the purpose had not been to factually but of course that would be a much more intrusive seizure much longer seizure and we don't want to give any kind of perverse incentive to officers to put off finding that critical information so we know from from all these cases that there is no bright line rule which would require every single moment to be absolutely necessary to factually the purpose of a stop or simply briefly state separately that even under just the traditional totality of the circumstances test this stop here would be reasonable because in any analysis you weigh the intrusion on the fourth amendment the privacy interests of the individual against the important governmental interests and here we we've already it's still the case that that is a vital interest which once the stop is justified may be may be pursued and plus once again we know that the issue here but again driving away that that would that would not be a desired outcome and the driver may not even know that he or she is free to go at that point might be confused as to what happened get him back up my concern car well again your honor as long as as we can establish that the officer is going to make some sort of communication to the driver the officer is not going to drive away then the issue is is present so again it's certainly conceivable that the officer could have driven away but that is not the only at that point reasonable decision for the officer to make it's eminently further questions the people ask the court to reverse the judgment of the  simple very narrow fact pattern there's an arrest warrant for the registered owner of the van that mr comics is driving the initial justification of the stop is simply to answer the question of whether that driver mr cummings is the owner of the van the person for whom the warrant applies the owner was female and mr cummings is of course male it's physically impossible for mr cummings to be the subject of the warrant and the officer in this case testified that he became aware of that fact immediately at that point all of the officers questions that were raised by the initial justification for the stop have been answered the seizure should have end it did not and thus to continue the seizure to further investigate the drivers could that credentials violated the fourth amendment were negative in that it should have ended as soon as the officer was trooper it was absolutely ok for the officer to approach it because entirely reasonable under the circumstances was it reasonable to say something it's absolutely reasonable to say something the officer can approach explain what happened and through some either implied or explicit statement to communicate to the individual in this case mr cummings that they are free to go and then and this is this is i think critical the officer can then continue the interaction and in the context of a consensual encounter we're not saying that the officer can't ask about the driver's license we're not saying that the officer can't talk to mr cummings but it has to be in the context of a consensual encounter because the purpose of the seizure has that it has been met in a situation know i'm not particularly comfortable writing a script for the police officer but the police officer has to create an environment in which the defendant or that the person who worth a reasonable person and send in all wrongdoing feel like they could refuse to answer for the questions you think a reasonable person would leave under the circumstances that being i would hope so  though i say that because again we have case law that says that you don't have to use those explicit words i think that the press the best practice in this situation would be to use those specific words  one was cited by counsel where there's no reasonable suspicion to stop in the first place and they've allowed checking away since in that instance absolutely i think that this is a different circumstance than that circumstance  all of our cases going all the way back to terry have said that duration of a seizure the reasonable duration of a seizure is analyzed with reference to the initial justification of the stop the languages is it is occasionally beyond the time reasonably required to complete the sole purpose justifying the stop or the the time recently required to answer the normal inquiries incident to the stop the normal inquiries incident to a dui checkpoint are very different than the very very narrow facts that we have in front of us to day to day all we have is a warrant for whom that cannot possibly apply to mr cummings and so the questions that are raised in that situation as opposed to a dui checkpoint or any other sort of checkpoint or any other sort of traffic seizure for that matter are different than those that apply in this case the city also argues that the driver had no privacy interests  in information about his driver's license or the registration certainly would you respond that certainly i do respectfully i believe that the state and the defense in on that point or are speaking past each other the problem is not the privacy interest in the information but the problem is that mr cummings was seized and so and that that seizure was unreasonably prolonged based on the purposes for  which that seizure was initiated this was a situation again a very very narrow fact pattern the warrant cannot apply to mr cummings the officer can clearly continue to speak to mr cummings but it has to be in the context of the consensual encounter now the privacy interests of what that conversation may entail i believe that we have an interest in not answering questions in in  tight time is an element within the totality of the circumstances but the totality of the circumstances in this case were that again there is a warrant mr cummings cannot possibly be the subject of that war the amount of time necessary to answer the questions incident to the purpose of this stop were exceedingly short and i'm not going to deny obviously that this was a very brief encounter but we can't  additionally we can't minimize what happened here a seizure is a seizure it's always inconvenient it's always stressful and it has to be analyzed within the rubric of the fourth amendment without going this is a this is a simple application of the existing law in this particular case very very narrow case once the purpose of the stop has been completed and the seizure and continue consensual that's that's what the third district urged the police officer to do in this case that's what the trial court urged the police officer to do in this case and again if that happened we wouldn't be here it's entirely reasonable can take to continue consensual is there with a bias of the quote duration of this was entirely justified by the traffic of the ordinary inquiries incident to such stuff you have no problem with the stop right i have no problem with the south only with the seizure the stop is just of this stop is justified in the ordinary inquiries incident as such  justified would be let me see your license what i would disagree with that the ordinary inquiries incident to this particular stop which is not a traffic stop it is the execution of an arrest warrant and the execution  impossible for the the person being seized to be the person the warrant applies if there is nothing in that statement that is a justified stop being later one that you were mistaken and that you're not allowed to the ordinary inquiries does this warrant up crying to this driver that question was answered having been answered it's important for the police officer to end the seizure this goes back i think to the state's naming of the argument claiming that the defense is asking for a bright line rule we're not asking for any sort of bright line rule we're simply applying the principles that have already been to and this is her car or something like that the only the only encounter the police could have had was limited to the original stop that being the warrant execution which that that the seizure would be limited to that initial justification the seizure of course being the expression of government of you know the government's power over the body of the person you know the difference between that and the consensual encounter would be that mr cummings would say i am late i'm on my way somewhere i need to go to syria i'd rather not answer these questions and we allow people to do that in consensual encounters in this particular encounter mr cummings was not not at liberty to do that he should have been but was not that's where the violations in your position warranty looked alike they had the same hairstyle the same style of moustache the defendant was first seen in the warrantees home he was followed from the home and pulled over and it wasn't to tell the parties were in court looking at a picture next to the defendant that they were able to say well no this is not the same person and furthermore in that situation when the defendant said oh i'm not the person you're looking for he was not in that situation able to verify that information right away the ordinary incidents the ordinary inquiries of that stopped were not answered until the officers rocked the information that the defendant gave them back to their squad car thank you so thank you i would ask that this honorable court affirm the third district's decision so defendant says let's make this one exception to the rule but once again he doesn't say which supreme court case would support this exception and as we've seen all the cases