please the court counsel near there are two primary issues that have been raised on this appeal one has to do with whether or not the traffic stop in this case was impermissibly extended by the law enforcement officers hempel let me ask you about the first is moment i have the time or well i believe that the entire duration of the traffic stop up to the point where the canine officer arrived was approximately eleven to twelve minutes that's correct in the briefing we and i got a speeding ticket if you aren't something that doesn't seem that long it doesn't seem extended and i think it has to be under th honor well and i guess that's going to be the question for the court to ultimately resolve is whether or not this cop was impermissibly extended given the entire facts and circumstances in this case and it may be that while you know i various individuals are some traffic stops may take longer than others the question is in this case did the traffic stop exceed the in this case or is it the standard of a reasonable stop what i'm stop and the facts and circumstances of this case what we know is that and there's no argument that the officer had a good reason to pull over the appellant at the time he did so he was clearly speeding ten miles in excess of the posted speed limit and took the first five minutes to return to his vehicle run a warrant check to make sure that that he wasn't a wanted man run a criminal records check and to verify his information it was on his registration because  driver's license on him at the time there were that took a total of five minutes it was then at that point that the officer had an obligation to begin to i wouldn't say necessarily hurry through the writing of the traffic hurry it along i think that whether or not the idea just that he can interfere with a man's liberty more than is a reasonable or speeding ticket that is correct something else comes along  and he certainly will if there's were simply just no articulable suspicion whatsoever that that drug activity had occurred given what what the facts and circumstances of this case were but what we know is that at the five minute point the officer had all of the information that he needed to fill out the idaho uniform citation now i might ask the court to take you to szell notice of misdemeanor criminal rule five in idaho criminal rule five which is the idaho supreme court's mandate and so then the question is is when we compare how long it took him to fill out that idaho uniform citation i might just invite the members of the court to take their own driver's license and fill one out and see how long it takes you maybe while watching t v with some  distraction it certainly should not have taken five minutes and fourteen seconds and when we couple that with the officer sworn testimony that he had every intention of holding the appellant at that location until such time as the drug arrived what we have is seems ok that seven or eight minutes may have been a problem in the loop the question is at what point is the stop impermissibly extended and what we know for certain is that at the time that the canine officer showed up and i used the canine officer because the officer's name was exactly the same as the defendant name in this case but at the time the canine officer showed up officer softball was completed doing what he needed to do at that point at the at the moment that he finished writing the ticket if the dog was only half way around the car then the dog had softened and he had to let him hit let him go that is exactly correct that because the supreme court has not given us any particular tests with and that's what developed said was perfectly acceptable we see havior because there is no expectation of privacy with respect to that issue however once the purpose of the stop has been completed and it certainly was in this case before the drug dog began doing his work the officers had an obligation to let him go and if they saw him ten minutes later engaging in some other type of activity that was inconsistent with the idaho traffic was they could have stopped him again and during that traffic stop this case because the appellant in this case was beginning to get frustrated with the duration of the stop and his the briefing demonstrates he stepped out of his vehicle past the officers what's going on why are you holding have to do events or who you know or getting out of utah out of his car and approached the officers but there was certainly just just the mere fact of getting out of his vehicle asking what's going on was not illegal activity criminal activity obstructive activity he was inquisitive the officer right and then the transcript he is finishing up to sit at the time the canine unit arrived at the very bottom of the memorandum order of the district court of very last lines and carry over to page five the fact still remains that had not completed the speeding ticket or i believe page thirty three of the transcript reveal the officers answer was correct you did not return my client's documents and this a fishing to him and then sent him on his way did you the officers answer was no and that's a page thirty four of the transcript from the suppression hearing so without any doubt the officer had completed his obligation at that point in time with respect to writing out the ticket and he was constitutionally permitted to hand him the ticket and send him on his way cabela's does not stand for the proposition  the stop can be extended any longer than it was and even one second one minute or five minutes but if you still writing the pick at the time of the canine unit arrived and when the cane when he and when when your client vs the the canine unit he stepped out of the car right after that point we now have we now have additional delayed only maybe just enough delay for the officers to tell him to get back in the vehicle and beyond that there would not be any more sandra compelling what they did was they overturned a more restrictive illinois supreme court decision that's correct and they said in a ten minute delay for justif ticket it's not unlawful even though it's combined with this now what i'm wondering is let's suppose hypothetically the ticket is all done when the dog gets out of the dog handlers car yet let's just suppose the size of pet of the dog takes about a minute to circle the car an alert on the door of the policeman could have given the man at his ticket he said you may be on your way yes but he didn't because the dog has just gotten out of the car and only going to take a minute for the dog to do a sniff as this is hypothetical but it may be the facts of the case i don't know yet why it's at a significant incursion on the driver's liberty because it's simply an extension of the stop that has nothing to do with the original basis for the traffic stop once again with the balance permits innocent person driving along yes would be irritated of being stopped for speeding tickets might delay in getting to the airport or mcdonalds or wherever you want to go but once he's got the ten or twelve minute or cation you why give your kids one more minute i don't think that it's a question of whether or not we are irritated by police basically just going on a fishing expedition for otherwise unrelated activity when they have no basis to do so they've they've completed the purpose for the infraction citation the in practice the speeding stop so to speak and then they think well let's go on here a little bit and poke around and see if we can find something else without any reasonable basis to do so we had some reasonable basis this guy did something really unusual we got out of his carny locked the door in the hardly anyone does that i'm not sure that the officers are the ones in the whole getting getting it right i'm not sure that the officers knew at that point in time he had locked the door but he certainly got out of the vehicle and then when they tried to go in they discovered that he had locked the door but you know overall even though when he won one in the morning in your drug house about one twenty in the morning near what you're honest i'm sorry and they already had their eye on this guy well they had done and one welfare check at his residence and turned up no activity they found no warrants on him and he was simply driving in an area of a known drug house which is at one twenty in the morning but that in and of itself did not give them reason to believe that he had been engaging in any criminal activity i would imagine within five walks of where we are right now that there has been some drug related activity going on does that mean any of us in this room are suspects because we're here i don't think so that doesn't arise that doesn't give a police officer reasonable ar plans you went back to his vehicle and at that point time radioed for the canine unit to come to his location on an on and record chance of it doesn't show up on the dispatch just bash watch but we do know that it at one twenty because one the officer had some unfamiliarity with with write a citation to the information that he had to fill out in the citation and three during the stop he had also divert his attention to what was going on seconds i would also point out that when the defendant accident his vehicle and came back toward the officers that the officers told him were going to run the dog around your car and he said ok whatever so there's an indication that he did have familiarity with this defendant based on a welfare check that involved allegations drug use but also this defendant's discussion of his travel plans was inconsistent with where the officer just followed him from so you need to also question your colleague but i'm wondering basically what the big deal is beating ticket stuff is delayed for an extra one minute or so after the policeman could have given you back your license and them is there some authority that really says one way or the other whether that extra minute or so is a  a i don't know if it's either misdemeanor or infraction but he can be ticketed i'm not sure you could be arrested in writing my for that oh no he did not know it the district court issued an alternative finding you want to defend that in the three minutes you've got the understand exactly what what what the alternative holding is alternative holding means that if the defendant brown had been driving within the speed limit of the officer nevertheless would have had reasonable suspicion to  no i don't think that's the i don't think that's what the district court said with the district court said was was even after that even if this was an extension of a traffic stop it was justified because during the stop  d there's been allegations that he was involved in drug activity the officer was personally aware of this is the theory there that even taking it at worst for your side of the case had the your honor you would question whether or not authority exists it does have a kind of my brief i pointed out two cases one from the u s supreme court that says a detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification and the last no longer than is necessary to actuate the purpose of the stop the tenth circuit said the fourth amendment requires that the officer making a traffic stop became the driver only as long as it's reasonably necessary to issue a citation or warning so authority does exist both from the united states  court and of these one other circuit with respect to that issue counsel if if we if we were to agree with you on this point then what we do with the alternative but simply reversed on that question there was no articulable suspicion the timid freighted in this  case this is very similar to that the bell is case where we have nothing more from the officers objective analysis of the facts in this case nothing more than a vague hunch of possible wrongdoing if i can briefly just go through those facts if that would be acceptable to the defendant had absolutely no warrants whatsoever there was not an indication of significant criminal history he may have been someone the base of in the officer's mind about where he was going but so was the person in the fellas the defendant as per the officer was not associated with the drug house and the welfare check that had been done that the defendant's house by that officer previously revealed no problems and no indication of drug activity whatsoever there was not a single fact in this record to support any articulable suspicion there was nothing more than a vague hunch and for that reason the district