peace corps good morning your honour's own marduk when arguing for the united states i'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal the district court's holding that the deputies could not remove the defendant from his vehicle during a traffic sto air the fact that the district court discredited two of the three arresting deputies does not change the result or warrant application of the exclusionary rule in this case the district court was clear in its order when it thought constitutional violation took place in this case and it was when the defendant was removed from his car drunk driving was there a constitutional violation assuming that it was appropriate to ask him to step out of the car  was their constitutional violation with the extent duration and manner in which the detention and search was carried out if there was assuming that it is as your honor stated and assuming that the district court discredited the two officers deputies who said that there was a furtive movement then the officer at even assuming that the officers had probable cause to arrest him at that point so might my question my question as well as to stop and the search which went on for quite a long time was that excessive  mean that the search of the vehicle after he will visit the detention mean they can they find him in the garage they block a man with their vehicle yes they get him out of the car and they detain him for quite a long time over what is  most a misdemeanor and there is a good misdemeanor where they'd they detained him for about seven minutes which is actually less than the time that it took to figure out who he was because according to the chinese testimony at the time that he arrived and saw the gun they still hadn't determined exactly who who they had in front of them so present it did district court make credibility determination with  judge did make credibility terminations about the other officer yes but you're saying you're appealing that determination one because there was no determination regarding the actual stop in terms of whether there was reasonable you described a misdemeanor at least one reckless driving that occurred in his presence and what did he what did between you testify that he saw and heard because he's heard some things that he five he saw that i'm sorry for the twenty five yes so to twenty two i'm sorry so he saw the car as it was driving in the liquor store parking lot what he and they have to seize him and then search the car was all about well your honor i mean the misdemeanors completed but under grigg that case talk specifically about absolutely contradicts what they said i i am not standing here to challenge any of that aspect of the district court's findings let me ask you you will use the trial attorney i was not you are well you might want to have a conversation with the trial attorney i mean what was available to the district court in determining that these officers were lying was available to the lawyer correct the video your honor  well the district judge with ample evidence on the record to support her conclusion without hesitation that two of the officers are lying is the information that was available to the district judge upon which she concluded that the two officers were lying was that available to the u s attorney who put that testimony on the stand well i mean that obviously this is the u s attorney was there when that testimony happened at that at the that the agents had looked for it so i thought i was the media show up to that you're saying that the usa didn't even know of the existence of the video exactly until it was proffered in court so that sympathetic to the cops here and on the way to the government i mean the whole thing is so it just smells so bad i understand that it's not sufficient to justify what the district court did purely as punishment for lying cops i got that on the other hand terms of evidence of properly in front of us is perrine who hears the tires screeching and then he turns around and he sees the could drunk disappearing around the corner yes now does that mean that anytime somebody screeches revs his that he heard it just after he saw this car drive away and there were no other cars in the area and so he linked it up with where their other office would there be other officers to testify about that there were some other officers at the scene but there's no record of them at that point there i think five officers who were there with sense showed up later there were implied officers trying to find this person  screeches tires no your honor there were just there were i believe five officers who were standing at the liquor store when this car drove in so only three of whom testified if i judge's opinion does the court find that there is probable cause to a fact a traffic stop and in fact well it does make a reference to the statement that was referenced how do you know interpret it that way says something i don't have a problem with the court said i don't have a problem with the stop up until i think at the certain point i think i think that when it yes your honor so i understand that's a new you know it's not a declarative i make a finding that there was either reasonable suspicion or probable cause and so i think that's one of the evidence i and so it's not i don't think we can find him i thought fine and it's clear that she had you know credibility troubles with the sheriff's officers and there's clear basis for her to have that  but that's not a basis to overturn i mean just because to punish the police based on that so help us understand then what the what we need to do here because now the government is saying but you know she didn't discredit this one other officer right and the question is is his testimony sufficient now or would there be further factual development to address because she never if if you take a position she never made a decision i mean should we be the ones deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion is there any potential for further factual development or are for us to determine whether there is probable cause so you are two things one that the court does not there is reasonable suspicion there background information background information are not factual findings and as your honour's indicated one clear finding is that the officers testif station because as your honour's indicated he heard something here momentary screeching and i just and that i don't believe it's not based on that alone but your honor those are specific inarticulate ahead just like i'd like to jump to what i think the court really did here with the court didn't necessarily address was the reasonable suspicion was there she did find two officers not to be credible what was more important  the district court cites when she refers to the standard for reasonable suspicion if your honour's look at the word or she says the constitution issues are well established and i dispute and then she cites read for the proposition that government interested in investigating possible criminal conduct based on an officer reasonable suspicion maybe outweighed by the fourth amendment interest of the driver in remaining secure from intrusion that's the case  public safety issue so just because the government police it says is reckless driving the office or sadist could be reckless driving doesn't mean that this case therefore they're allowed to necessarily investigate when so how did you get the video so how did you get your hands on the video we did investigation like we always do you went to the hotel or did no doubt we have our investigator asked looked in the garage and saw that there was a camera proven i think why an officer is cannot be the basis for finding that somehow this was routine and that there were demonstrated historical facts the other cases time alone is not enough to find that  can't be supported by the proper approach would be to remand and ask the court to clarify did you really mean greg did you really mean the officers like credibility but i think it's clear and in the court is also very strong in its warning about the reasoning for the proper remedy in terms of long term by officers as well as what you teach is the distributor as well as what it teaches the government as well that the government needs alternate me they got the police could have knocked on the window there could have been a consensual but my question is burden of proof which me and you say the government has the burden of government can object to that are going to come say that that's wrong but that means it's close case and the government question for you yes minute is is the side enough grigg enough but apparently the district court sided grik in its decision and yet that enough to know your honor i just like to point out page ten eighty three of great which is the actual holding the senate that bit where the court says we hold under the balancing test set forth in hensley a court reviewing the reasonableness of a stop to investigate a past misdemeanor or other minor infraction must assess the risk to potential risk to public safety associated with the nature of the offense so it's the nature of the fence the actual driving behavior not the fact that the car was parked but the district saying that the district court district court says with no threat to public safety shown the district courts talking about while the car was parked you know because there was no furtive movement she didn't believe that happened so she's talking about the officers behavior at the time the car was parked not gr cars one was unmarked one other one had lights in the front so whether it was painted or not i i don't know i mean it didn't have lights across the top it had lights in the front but i don't know if it was i don't think it was completely unmarked the other one clearly winds but just in closing i mean it it gives me no pleasure to come before this court when a district court has discredited two officers  but everything in this district court's order and everything she said from the bench you know this case just smells not only where the officer is lying what you've got is a guy driving a black guy driving a fancy mercedes slowly through a liquor store parking lot and after he leaves he screeches tires basically psychologically saying bleep you are the officers they're offended they search for him for fifteen minutes they finally find the car in a garage in a park and you know in a parking lot and at that point they block him they finally find a guy they lie about what they did and you're standing up here defending the