traffic stop an officer may ask the occupants of a car travel related question with relating to their destination route and purpose counsel this is for us these template cases the really quickly so i'm going to jump in here for me  very crucial threshold determination in this case is whether it was in the ordinary a routine traffic stop case as you just mentioned or whether the circumstances surrounding it make it something else could you believe that those facts contributed significantly to the reasonable suspicion question as as your honor noted this vehicle an officer followed it for a short time without activating the officers emergency lights after following the vehicle for that short amount of time that the vehicle ultimately poles and a seemingly random driveway before the officer initiated a traffic stop and as your honor noted it was one in the morning so all d of those facts certainly the government believes factor into the reasonable suspicion that the officer alternately developed in this case that justified as per the detention of the occupants of the car i believe the reasonable suspicion facts are based on those facts that the time of night the fact that they pulled into the driveway before the op her even tried to initiate a traffic stop the fact that they did not get out of the car and then certainly when we get to the point where the officer begins asking what we believe are plainly permissible travel related questions that are allowed in any traffic the court discusses the fact that the officer spent time asking what the court characterized as permissible questions regarding the purpose of their trip d and their travel routes attempting to corroborate the responses to those questions and  i do not because in the immediately next paragraph this court states we thus conclude that the traffic stop exceeded neither the constitutional boundaries set forth in our then expand cases nor those set forth in rodriguez so i i read that you honor as a holding i do think that this court in the legal so go then went on to provide what is arguably dicked or possibly i think more fairly characterized as an alternative holding that to the extension rodriguez imposed any new i don't think so your honor i think st of all these kind of travel related questions i think can they do fit within what rodriguez discussed as kind of having the same objectivism forcing d the traffic code d and rodriguez described as ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly rosalee and let me ask the question a different way counsel how were the questions that were asked here related to how do we think well i think  anytime a driver is asked the question as simple as where are you and why are you here and the driver cannot provide a good answer and that's and it's one o'clock in the morning and they have just pulled into a seemingly random driveway i think driver did answer the question by saying that he was dropping off the president but at the same time the officer did not see any friend exit the vehicle and then shortly thereafter the back seat passenger in the front seat passed there get two different names for the supposed friend think yes that under rodriguez the rationale of anything essential that occurs during a traffic stop has to relate to the specific traffic violation or roadway safety ringback and it's the government's position in this case that these kinds of questions do relate probe whether these people whether this driver knew where he was after the officer gets behind him without his lights activated and the driver responds by pulling into a driveway at one in the morning i think in that context yes the officer's questions were related to real  i do not read it as doing that your honor i don't think so i think in assessing what's reasonable travel plan question i think obviously we need to look at individual case on its own facts and i think we can't we have to told us what's the relevance in your view of the failure to produce an insurance card well i think at that point it shows that certainly at the point that the officer began traffic laws requiring you to have your insurance card in the in the car i don't know so it's my understanding it's my understanding yes your honor that that is a legal requirement in the state of iowa to have proof of insurance in your vehicle  the government's position of course is that this officer in any officer is allowed to ask travel to plan questions as part of a routine traffic stop that's what this court's cases have helped send at least the mid one thousand nine hundred and ninety s rodriguez did not purport to overrule those cases in fact if you look at the facts of rodriguez d the officer in that case asked the driver travel related question in the court and rodriguez did not suggest that was improper and notably the officer asked those questions before he issued the warning and the court in rodriguez only became concerned with the fact that after issuing the warning the officer that made the driver wait seventy eight minutes while a drug dog sniffed the vehicle  proposition that these travel related questions remain a permissible part of any traffic stop the district court chose to ignore those presidential to reason the court found that those decisions are irreconcilable with rodriguez  think that's simply not the case rodriguez did not apply in on the propriety of travel related question and certainly rodriguez did not get the district court license to ignore this court's finding holdings i think at best rodriguez is silent as to the issue of travel it is the government's position that travel related questions always relate to those things  they want to touch on we talked about this already but that just across position seems to be that real self out of the language approving travel related questions with dicta i don't think that the proper reading of the also got up and then d i did want to discuss the good faith issue in this case the absolutely has suggested that the government waived that argument i just wanted to note that the district court decided this motion on a basis that was not raised by the defendant the defendant did not have the defendant's motion to suppress did not argue that travel related related questions are forbidden i would note that in the defendant in the district court defendant specifically  this is on page eight of the defendant's plea from the district court there is no subject matter limitation on the scope of allowable investigation so long as the stop is not unreasonably prolonged in the district court the defendant seem to be conceding there is no clear line forbidding travel ringback question certainly that argument was not made in the district court that rationale was announced for the st time in the district court's order so this appeal is the st time the district the st time the government has had the opportunity to lay the good faith  ue and certainly we think the the officer in this case was entitled to rely on this court's precedent including the real sell gado and that the officer was not required to read between the lines of rodriguez and determine while doing a traffic stop that  i think we proceeded simply with an appeal at that point your honor but i can certainly look into that and alert the court if i'm incorrect in that regard i think i think  we the government did say in the briefs and briefing in the district court in real sulcata which itself explicitly included a good faith holding or alternative holding so i think we certainly presented the opportunity to the district court if we did not do much that's not that's not good enough well i suppose that's what we did your honor for better or worse but we do believe it's proper for this court sitter the good faith question on appeal but of course our primary position is that these questions were permissible under longstanding a precedent if there are no other questions from the court we would ask that the district court's question order be reversed appellate position which is not very likely in my experience with the court and always in the as the appellant but in this particular case i think the judge grasped questions and i go to the heart of the matter here and let's take it from the perspective of the stop that why it was initiated it was initiated because of this burnt out license plate light period that had nothing to do with them not getting out of the car and pulling into an address or driveway because as soon as they pulled into this driveway nobody out of the car because that's when i officer killed war and this is what our lock them off ok you can just stop here what's the address without looking don't look at the address it's illegal in the kirk and he did know about these are the questions he starts asking that right after he checks out and has the up did you go back and see that burglary it's one o'clock in the morning and they kind of suspiciously pull off the road into this driveway after the police start following of it does that come into play candid about this feud if you're driving another road and you point to a driveway that doesn't rise to reasonable suspicion they're going to commit a burglary i mean good cop they pulled into a driveway sun we don't know the address because calcined david in the backseat here he's been telling us where to turn left where to turn right he didn't give us the address and we suppose he knows where he's going and nobody even checked out whether or not willie park was where they're going to wind up we're live or where they were where they were going to all the officers concerned about was what's the address don't look at the don't look at the house number tell me what the others swap if you didn't directions by turn left here turn left answer your question about rodriguez is that has to be related to that stop to begin with like if there's reckless or careless driving or marrow drive or other criminal activity that they have likely there was one case  a real silver so that it's you know that that that case turned upon plain view didn't turn upon travel related questions i mean that's what that's what justified the stop and the and the and the and the reasonable didn't do what he could have done you know it's what he did do it which will actually happen you know it want to know about what's illegal in the car and then any comes up with this well you're sweating too much well you know clearly if you look at the video that  the initial stop at the driver's it's when it's not it's not in play it's only after ixtapa was extended that he sed that the that any swelling occurred and those are fines by the by the district court and those are permitted deference