to his home in billings montana which is several hours away he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop and he legal pass highway one hundred and ninety one dollars is a fairly narrow highway he turned left off the highway and then took an immediate right into what was a van becoming a business subdivision at this point trooper paul more determined that something was amiss based on where mr brooks pulled off the highway and from that point forward he had concerns of criminal activity and began a joint criminal investigation and traffic stop you well that's because you have limited time and i know we're familiar with  facts that it seems to me the central issue in this case is this the district judge found that the stock had been programmed past the amount of time necessary to do the traffic processing and so this case presents the question that i think the evans case left open and footnote eight which is where there are enough other reasons to detain your client for what i think was about twenty two minutes before the officer told  twenty three minutes that he was free to go and so could you address why you think there were other reasons that justified prolonging the detention of course here other than because you don't challenge ability to stop him for the traffic violation here that's correct your honor so so st with that line of questioning is when do we evaluate whether independent reasonable suspicion exists and it's our argument that we whoever i call that this was a dangerous offender i stopped a dangerous offender and i may not be accurate information but he says that's what he was told he did not know that at the time of the exit order he says he learned that he brought him into the car and he learned that shortly after bringing him into the car that's correct once he'd given the exit order at frist mr brooks and brought him into his vehicle right did get information ok now i'm just i'm just i'm talking about the period of detention you're saying he must know before he he must have all this information at the time he tells him to get out of his car correct your case to cite for that purpose here on or i think that gorman gives us some but some foresight there into how to deal with this it's the impetus that caused this chain of i don't think here is my difficulty with that so help me you make a traffic stop it's an ok traffic stop you're entitled to call in with the guys license and find out you're home with the guys license and they say oh my god you've just picked up dormer killer you're saying you can't take that into account because you didn't know it at the time you told him to get out of the car your honor the way that that i believe we should view this is that when when he took him out of the car that's when that delay in the start but so you're saying yes to answer my question is that if you then call then and find out that you've fortuitous solely stopped for a traffic violation and wanted criminal you may not keep him longer because you didn't know that when you told him to leave the car well i think that at that point we're evaluating independent reasonable suspicion at two separate points in once so here's the difficulty it seems to me he has the ability to detain him at least as long to do the routine traffic processing correct that's correct your honor as he's doing the routine crash traffic processing sure and a very early point in that process and he learns that he's got a dangerous offender it may not be accurate but he's told that we're not looking for probably cause we're just talking about suspicion so when you add that to the mix of what he already knows it's a rental car there's a bullet on the seat my guess is it's been what's on every seat in montana but i don't know that we can take judicial notice of that and then  when he asks him sort of the routine questions they don't match up does all that stuff and then at some point i want to i put aside the miranda issue your client says yes i'm a convicted felon when you add all those things up again putting aside miranda don't they give enough reasonable suspicion to prolong the investigation your honor i think that there's an argument that cannot but i think what's important here is when that determination is made right and you know that's why i was asking is your point is that you have to make that determination when you tell the person to exit the car well i think that's when they say yes is it because if there is a reasonable argument the other stuff comes in it hurts you so your point is that it unreasonably delayed and was conceded to by the government but the court found that that was the impetus that st stop that under the exclusionary rule tape that the nd stop which then led to  that when the exit order was given that is the impetus that started this delay and what's very important i think with that exit order is that before trooper moore even addressed mr brooks he did not frisk mr drugs brooks the st thing he did when he got him out was search the car a visit a visual search of a car and that's just for a moment if you could just i'm not sure i agree with you on garmin that your interpretation so let's just driver's side of brooke's car brooks pulled off the highway further than what was normally would have been expected by the officer according to the officer brooks was making odd movements as  more accident is here but i'm i didn't mention the great brake lights here ok so let's just take that and looking at the things that i think are valid i don't you know i'm not talking about whether he looked at him funny or didn't look at him funny that's not the items that i focus on but i'm looking at these items here and why isn't that enough the honorable the i think that one major issue here is the gross movements the video doesn't show them you can see mr brooks raise and lower his hands you don't see these gross movements that trooper more uses is additional basis for his his haunch well it's hard to see anything though from the video on that point from that far away i mean do you see anything at all you see his outline at all in the video i saw it i guess hard to make out if you can you are you can see mr brooks raise or lower his hands you can see his head if he's moving if he's twisting if he's going into the visible but again i think i want to keep asking you the same question is it important to me shortly after mr brooks gets into the patrol car the officer learns that he has he stopped a very dangerous offender i have no idea what that means i have no idea whether it's accurate or not but he's told that if that counts surely that and he now knows he see the bullet in the car surely that gives  another suspicion to continue the investigation past the traffic issue does it not it makes my argument a lot harder ya know if that's when we evaluate and so your so your argument has to be that we can't we can't our evaluation stops at the moment that he exits the car that's when the the mission of the traffic stop ended and at some point we do have to pick a bright line of say one of the mission of the traffic stop our cases say ends after you've done the routine investigation that one to stop and so when you call back with a license and registration and whoever you call i have no idea who you call if you call someone and they say yes that what they say that's an expired license or we have no such person or something like that but you're entitled to do title of the detained person long enough to do that check your great you are your honor so it doesn't end when he exits the car it ends when you finish that check well that's where we have an unrelated investigation that's prolonging the stop  so my question is why isn't that unrelated investigation justified in light of the fact that the officer learns as he's doing the what he can do we all agree can do that your they information comes at the very beginning of what i think we both agree is the ok part of the traffic stop checking out the person and so why doesn't that justify the extension i think that once you're in the car you have a different set of facts but once you take somebody out of the car it's an investigative technique especially because you made a search and it it was the officers testimony that that doesn't fact prolong the stop so we have to stop being prolonged at that point and we need to evaluate the information on if he was able to at that point the officers testimony was that he always takes someone he's detained for a traffic stop back to his car correct that is correct and and the district court credited that right that that was just part of the detention so why hear it does it is it anything other than well the trooper more testified that it can be an investigative technique and the way i look at that your honour's if he regularly does that he regularly prolongs the traffic stop how is it prolonged when you take someone out of the vehicle it adds time to the stop and trooper more testified that the morning of may it please the court my name is cassidy adams and i represent the united states and the district of montana i'd like to start off by talking about reasonable suspicion as well and continuing the conversation the court just had were asking the court to affirm the district court's order denying the defendants motion to suppress specifically regarding reasonable suspicion at the trial level judge christianson noted a number of factors that ultimately led up to finding reasonable suspicion he didn't just take one factor individually looking at excerpts of the record pages twenty two through twenty three is very insightful st of all from the very beginning of the traffic stop the defendant pulled off the highway to the left into a newly developed subdivision and turn took an immediate right and continue driving down the road parking alongside a durbar why does that give rise to suspicion of anything except a traffic violation at that time the trooper did not have reasonable suspicion ok so so all the things that occurred before he stopped him are sensually irrelevant to reasonable suspicion of a crime other than a traffic violation do you  agree not entirely your honor so reasonable suspicion as a culmination of fact i understand but if you're repeating your facts that made it reasonable to stop him for the traffic violation what happened after that and judge after the traffic stop that gave the officer the kind of reasonable suspicion that might allow him to prolong well going forward after the trooper pulled over the defendant he testified about the nature of the location of where the defendant pulled over and how that is not normally how people pull over immediately there after the trooper exited the vehicle and testified that he saw gross furtive movements which judge christians says i do not find to be supportive of reasonable suspicion because they're entirely subjective and i think we have to credit that finding by the district judge so what else happens there after the trooper had to ask the defendant are all his window down and in viewing the video the trooper asked the defendant six times to roll this video window down and the defendant did not fully comply with that request until after the th time and that's very important for officer safety concerns so at this point the situation and the reasonable suspicion is building well so let me let me ask the question differently so you don't have to walk through the one hour tape nd by nd at the time that he took him out of the car did he have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigation of any other crime other than the traffic why wish at that point he did not it wasn't until he ok saw what happens later that in your view that gave him that reasonable suspicion what happened was that as soon as the defendant was removed from the car which the troopers a lot to do us part of a traffic stop he doesn't have to have reasonable suspicion to do that pursuant to maryland versus wilson as soon as the defendant's asked to get out the car the trooper briefly looks and to ensure there is no firearm in the vehicle and at that point he sees ammunition before that the defendant had twice denied having a weapon which is inconsistent with the ammunition in the vehicle and the defendant story that he had been attending a wedding at that point the trooper did have reasonable suspicion there was more going on montana you seem to believe that if they where a gun in the car with a can of rice a reasonable suspicion it would not so why does a bullet to give rise to reasonable suspicion i understand because he said i have no i have no firearms on me that makes it inconsistent but why does that give rise to reasonable suspicion of it it was the bullet combined with the other factors that the trooper had already observed and also the fact that the defendant was not honest at that point there is what the trooper thought was a spent shell casing later learned to be a bullet the defendant twice denied said i don't have any weapons and then the trooper got him out again that we got him out of the vehicle pat searched him and asked him again do you have any weapons and rd time the defendant denied having any weapon so what use of fact that he have a bullet make it clear that he lied about having the logical inference that one can make from seeing ammunition in a vehicle is that it's used to shoot something unless it's some kind of collector's item but as the defendant told the trooper at the very initial of a traffic stop this was a rental vehicle it was not his own vehicle and the trial court even noted that two distinguished this  n a conversation that it had with counsel at the motion hearing that there is might be a difference between someone's old pickup truck that he goes out to the shooting range or goes hunting with in montana that distinction versus a short term rental car that's only been rented a few days prior someone denying have any weapons in the vehicle and someone coming in from out of state combined with the other factors that the trooper saw and the defendant appeared to be shielding appeared to be making gross movements and also was very reluctant to roll down his window and had to be asked six times i guess that's wrong i want to focus on for a little bit here because there are some factors that seem  relevant appropriate to the officer relied on and then there's some reasons for suspicion that seem to be innocuous and that could apply to any one for example and you've mentioned a couple of trooper more thought it was suspicious that he was driving a rental car and he said he'd gone for a wedding that doesn't seem that suspicious that someone would rent a car to go to a wedding but brooks didn't have luggage and car i don't know how he would know that by not looking at the trunk at even if he didn't have luggage in the car and the brooks was on a highway that is used for drug trafficking well there's a lot of people who are on that highway aside from people who are using that probably more than the people that are using it for drug trafficking he had a map sure and toilet paper in the car that also seems somewhat a knock us and then his car looked lot lived in i'm just trying to figure out how these constitute particular you respond to that i think the court needs to consider all the factors in their entirety but judge christensen and his order denying the defendant's motion to suppress relied on the factors that were not quite as subjective as that because that you're correct like people have rental cars people go out of town to weddings but it's the inferences and the totality to people go out of town and rent a car for a wedding and then have a deny having weapons and have a munition in their vehicle nonetheless it's you agree with your friend that the issue is whether or not there was reasonable suspicion at the time he exited the car because it seems to me if if that inquiry in this case you've got that you have some difficulties i thought the inquiry was whether he had reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop and a lot of things happened after mr brooks enters the car aren't those two critical factors in this case they are critical factors as well and the reason i was focusing so much i don't know well in the absence of them i don't think you have a reasonable suspicio but once he gets in the car and this traffic check is going on and he's told you have a very dangerous offender there and then later on we have to get to the miranda issue i suppose mr brooks says yes i have a previous felony conviction then you've got something there which added to the bulletin the other stuff maybe reasonable suspicion but i don't see how you have it before that well the troopers reasonable suspicion for criminal activity but the trial court found became particularized to the point sought ammunition but it also continued to build there after to the point where he had probable cause of criminal activity when he learned that the defendant was a violent offender at that i understand the officer's testimony it said i learn very soon within a minute or two after we get in the car and he says come to the car while i check my doom or my check i learned within a minute or two he was a very about who said that to him and what it was based on i know i know later on we find out that he has convictions but at that point do what's the conversation we don't have that on the tape he had just patch call him so that when you watch the video you hear him get a phone call all right but we don't hear that you hear the words that's correct yes but that the phone call was what he testified to was he didn't want there was a use caution warning with this individual and he didn't want mr brooks to hear that information over the radio and so that occurs when the phone call that's my understand ok so we can follow that on the tape and figure out how long you can hear the phone ring yes your and that phone call was part of the initial background check that is done during every routine stop when you're being detained for a traffic violation right that wasn't the secondary check was it i'm not sure if that was what part of the secondary checks or not your honor he requested multiple he requested a check out of billings which is where the defendant lives for warrants he requested what's called an epic check and he also gave information to just patch around the same time just with the driver's license information and i thought your papers indicated that it was part of the  initial check that was made to dispatch that would be made routinely but you don't know that it may not be i would have to read that part of the record your honor i would just go ahead what would you agree  approached regarding the movements on the video i would agree they're not visible on the video i think it's hard to see and we conceded that as much in our brief and the court can also observe the trooper get out of the car while he's observing the movement so he's not a closer perspective and regarding the brake lights being on we don't concede that the trial court found that they were are that the trooper testified that they were and this is the video show that the video i unclear your honor when i watched the video what the light is kind of the way the video the light is shining it's hard to see but the trial court did take that testimony into consideration was the trooper testimony that the brake lights were still on after he got out of his vehicle he the trooper and and approached the car or was the testimony the brake lights were still on after he had arrived at the at the scene they remained on for some period of time if you know  on page one of one of the excerpts of record the trooper said the brake lights continued to be on and was concerned that if the vehicle wasn't in park  court judge christianson went through the factors that they hate in case united states versus hate and reaching its determination that he was dying custody part of the reason that the troopers voice was so loud which i'm imagining is part of the court's concern as the traffic stop immediately started with the trooper using a loud voice and normally that's not how it's done to use that a lot of volume is because the defendant's window was rolled down or rolled up and the trial court found on pages eleven through twelve the excerpt of record i mean reaching its conclusion on that point that the trooper needed to use an elevated volume to speak with the defendant but shortly after the trooper learned there was no firearm on the defendant's person the nature of this interaction completely mellowed out and the trial court noted that as much the trooper was concerned about safety but mr brooks was never handcuffed he was never placed in the backseat of the patrol car and the trooper informed him that he asked everyone to come back to scar as part of his traffic stops and it was clear to mr brooks that that he would be free to go once through twenty three of the excerpt of record where he reaches his conclusion about the trooper having a reasonable suspicion and at that point he considers one of the factors to be the trooper's testimony that the brake lights judge here what's in addressing your questions about when he found out when mr brooks was a violent offender the stop commands that fifteen in the morning they at eight hundred and twenty one the trooper more finally calls in the stop and that's when both of them are in the vehicle right and then at eight hundred and twenty seven so six minutes after they've entered the vehicle is when he gets information on the violent offenders happened i see he says in his testimony it happens within a couple of minutes and unfortunately it's not on a bill on the tape because it occurs on a phone call correct you're on a call appears to occur much sooner than there's a call history that the nine  dispatch center keeps it's at excerpts of record two hundred and seventy nine dollars the times that i gave you or directly off their own record so we're at that point twelve minutes into the stop when what has that  getting it from that that's what that's of a question that was asked to your friend and that's why i think that question was asked do we know where he's getting the information from now the words we know there's a call to the information  eight minutes later what do we know he appears within a couple minutes of entering the car to be on his phone and his testimony seems to be that's when i learned it and so is there any evidence about who he was talking to so why why aren't we stuck with that as well it's in the record your honor and it was an exhibit at the suppression hearing the exact time so obviously but you understand that there was a there was a call at that exact time to the people who kept records of calls the question is was there earlier call to someone and he does appear to be on the phone much earlier i don't believe the record supports and earlier finding outside of what the call history shows  judge steyn to your question on why the exit order prolongs the stop st we know from rodriguez that unrelated investigations to the traffic stop that prolong the stopping per se on reasonable under  the th amendment immediately after mr brooks was taken out of the vehicle st we have a search of the car even before officer safety is addressed even before mr brooks is frex frist sees me nd they get to the car and he divert his attention from mr brooks gets his flashlight out and visually inspect the car through the open door next then calls in a partner and it is their policy that they cannot search a vehicle unless they have a partner present a partner being called in is also abnormal for a traffic stop per trooper morse testimony then we immediately have the calling in of all the secondary background checks the epic check of locals check a warrants check  again so in terms of his getting information about the felony history of of your kind of mr brooks was that one of that wasn't that through the call that he made for registration and license check he called in the stop and he called in the secondary checks at the same time so whatever information starts coming back there may be some information that is warm and traffic stop but we also at the exact him same time have the secondary checks that are on related to the traffic but but if it's at the same time do we count that in other words if he is entitled to make a call for registration and driver's license and he has to wait for that that response before he ends the detention before he issues the citation if that doesn't add to the time and while he's waiting he also makes this other call how does that affect in terms of prolonging in any way that's what rodriguez addressed your honor it says that even if you're diligently processing the traffic citation  testified that removing someone from the vehicle prolongs the stop but if that's part of the normal traffic stop for him it wouldn't prolong it any longer than if he didn't have that any kind of subjective or or other belief that he might have a secondary investigation if he does it every time and it seems that the court credited him for this then it has no effect on prolonging the invest the detention respect for your honor i would say it's an investigative tactic that he uses every time to put people in a closed environment to evaluate them and i think that his his norm is to prolong so often violation of so another officer who ordinarily takes individuals back to the car detention there's no problem in doing that but if subjectively you think hey this is a good this is a good tactic to put the middies in maybe have them talk if you have that subjective intention as well then that changes it and it makes it u the united states versus