knew of defendant prior to his observations on the state which was september thirtieth he had interacted with the defendant on many fourth of the same year two thousand and fifteen and then incident residue on it all of which sort of you can often knows are used in the ingesting of narcotics she he also suggests assume presume that the residue on the fo  he saw this behavior in this what looks like an ocular shopping trip to to those stores but it wasn't a knock it was because the sergeant knew that people in the manufacturer of math not only can we find most of the items needed to make math at drugstores like this but when people are in fault with others in in obtaining these items they often separate themselves and they go to different stores and her husband was stopped and all this to stop was on two recordings one of them carried the whole stop one of them did not but the first six minutes of the interaction was the vehicle stopped involve the defendant's husband and he was questioned and yes in the car and he was arrested for driving without a valid license but he he stop just to kind of create the mood of what was happening here but eventually she was being questioned by sergeant engine house he comes over he says what did you buy this and then he says do you remember me to this case he based on those those materials so you can johnson says to her as a friend and you have these two methamphetamine making materials you know these charges hanging over her head referring to the may fourth incident where she was not charge defendant and her husband had been blocked from walmart that day from buying pseudoephedrine because he had attempted to buy too many and i guess there's a system that tracks the purchasing of the selling of that i because it is so commonly used to make narcotics so based on all that information defendant was eventually arrested and charged with the possession of manufacturing methamphetamine manufacturing materials that when you determine whether or not he had enough to ask for in the back earth because if they don't see i think the batteries interaction with the defendant and the shopping trips you see dozen more rings which again i'm the surface would certainly look pretty innocuous but again this is we're not it is not you and i w looking at at this shopping trip it was it was an experienced street crimes officer knows that this is the type of of behavior that people who are in the business of making methamphetamine and other drugs typically employ suspicion and math problem because of this point ed just as sergeant testified he knew that the defendant has a history an association with methamphetamine materials and individuals i didn't  get into with that may fourth incident in defendant said that she was with a family called the needy nurse and that one of them had been convicted for possessing drug paraphernalia she knew that they were involved in that out in the meth game and she also lied about where she got those those drug use items and needed that she got them from him to burn so this sergeant now before as he walked up to the vehicle before he asked  specific question that she associated with people who were involved in methamphetamine she almost certainly used it at some point use the drug or all she would have had those items on her  argued in their brief that the lion's share of these factors the people would submit weigh in in favor of concluding that she was not in custody for example the location of circumstance that it certainly could have been and it was pretty casual who walked up and just talked to her while she was in her own vehicle this was during the daylight there wasn't certainly a lot of questioning at all again from the beginning of the traffic stop to the to her second statement about what was in the second bag only nine minutes went by and before six minutes she wasn't the focus of any of this investigation that was her husband who was arrested for driving  without a valid license and i think that the movie the videos show with the movement of this of this whole scene was not such a and and oppressive or aggressive move there's no yelling or pressure there's no show force there's no showing of a weapon it was just simple questioning by an officer who obviously had a relationship with this person before they knew each also you have reasonable suspicion to believe that she was purchasing it or in the possession of methamphetamine making materials that he could have that he was able to detain her very briefly to ask questions that's exactly what happened here it was very green he got the answers were pretty much right away yes ask a question and that i gave him the probable cause to then arrest her based on her history and his experience with this area leave and the officer can still ask questions briefly to investigate based on reasonable suspicion that's that's one of those areas where you can justify prolong a stop seized from the band in which she was as a teacher should be suppressed because she was in custody and was not going to miranda warnings before she was interrogated by the detective i think that the facts of this case and some of the issues can get rather convoluted hand i think that people can get lost within the details of the case and toward there than i would note that there were in fact three motions to suppress that were living gated in the trial or below and i think that's what causes some of the combination of the question of reasonable suspicion probable cause but the fact of this question or what is at the root that this issue is the motion is rest which was  bragg's as being determinative of whether somebody is in custody or not and most of those factors are in favor of the court's finding in this case that is that the defendant was in custody when she was interviewed arrested but the encounter continued the husband was arrested within about two minutes and that's another of the factors that comes into play here is while the state argued otherwise she was separated from family at that point she was separated from him he's in the back of a squad car can provide no support for assistance she's been detained by the police and kept in a way that she was clearly not brutally when the judge found that she wasn't pretty to leave you know the specific focusing on that the second is whether it's in interrogation whether in and to that extent reasonable suspicion probable cause or did issue i don't think that there was reasonable suspicion here and then  y stop what you're dealing with this typically not the in target of origin of of the question for instance in havilland decided by this court the question was whether the question that was thrown out was  interrogation or whether it was just a general question and in that case while this quote set forth the six blanks factors it didn't discuss another factor this generally answered as part of the stove deal question which is whether or not the defendant was a target of an investigation whether the interrogation was focused and driven toward one person in this case it wasn't alan it was not well for example you know  has committed an offense for instance it was discussed about up to this and the difference with meant to swell was that when this when the defendants left the pharmacy the police knew what was in the back the pharmacist better hero the officer doesn't even know what's in the back there's no basis for that and that was part of the basis of the trial court said there is no reasonable suspicion because until she tells them he doesn't even know what's in the back the officer position that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion the second answer is that the question here in the difference in each of the situations turns on whether the question is a general question or whether somebody had a prescription the question was and is as the trial court noted in this case one to determine who was was the focus of investigation rebecca moore was the focus of this investigat the officer was brought there strictly to question her and was questioning her about what was in the car because it was a focus interrogation it's a different situation than one in which there's a general question  any necessary suspicion in the fact that the husband went separately from the wife if you've been asked what i would do if i can avoid shopping with my wife i do it there is nothing suspicious about the behavior except given the background and except given the slant that the officers but in looking had whether the behavior the real problem here are the difference again between men to say in this case is then we don't know what was purchased in any of those stores and given that the items that were purchased are not inherently illegal or suspect there was no basis for the officer so the to know at that he began his questions because he was asking those questions believing her to be a suspect doing so in a situation that was inherently or said and dominated by police because it was congestion and things like that that that's the case we knew that that's a legal product and there's nothing wrong person purchasing it but that obviously was the the basis for a stop and that stock was up held so i don't is again incidents involving drugs and people associated with drugs and now the defendant knew or i'm sorry can i ask you that the defendant was involved in this world and he also had t special knowledge that experience that is going to separate drugstores distancing yourself from these purchases these purchases is something that people who make nothing further mean that's what they do and he had that knowledge and that's doubt it was just that was certainly i think a reasonable question and obviously sergeant even asking thought it was a reasonable question based on what he observed based on what he knew i don't think he should throw his experience and his knowledge out the window in  being a police officer i think he should use everything that that he has learned based on individuals and based on general experience to investigate situations and this is this vehicle stopped legally