the arguments we could let mr garrett of st doesn't matter it's your time to proceed let me just say this i think if you both agree on given issue says i don't think it would be helpful to us to have  started the traffic stop he also had a belt tape on him for audio recording no camera recording but just debate about it and they stopped the he stopped the car and he realized that the driver and the and the passenger only spoke spanish so he decided that because he was having difficulty communicating with them because he didn't speak spanish very well he would call a nd officer to come and translate for for him he did that and meanwhile in the time that he was waiting for the nd officer to come and translate he asked for mr martinez more pertinent to the consent were that after the traffic stop and after our argument that the traffic stop was prolonged at that at that particular time there were three officers at the scene on the side of the freeway which was seven miles from the nearest stop so we would get say that a person could walk there but it was pretty isolated out there there were three communicate with the driver in the passenger and he as i indicated the other the other officer officer modesto the translator arrived about seven minutes later so it was about a total of seven minutes and a couple of minutes probably about seven or eight minutes before the nd officer arrived and explain to the passenger on the driver why he had stopped the driver after that he at seven hundred and forty eight dollars he completed the warning citation but did not give it to my client and tell him he was free to leave it was not until nine minutes later after the stop had been explained to the clients and that the warning ticket was finally given to my client and he signed signed it  they returned his documents to him he went back to the car which was about he started walking back to the car which is about twenty feet twenty yards and twenty yards away from the police officers  the stop and stopping officer called him back to walk back to his sheriff's unit and said that he he  wanted to ask him some other questions my client didn't answer that but they started asking him questions and they told him wait here we're going to go talk to the past they went to the talk to the passenger and they did things while they were they said while they were talking to the passenger there were going to check the bin even though he didn't suspect that the car was stolen and then he walked she can get her and her brother ready and he said well one just hold on just a minute we're going to let you go and then at that particular time which was about i want to him to sign the search the consent to search document they asked questions we got what was he responsible for everything in the car and then he said after a couple of questions back to the officer said well really my my property is the backpack a black backpack and that in the back of a car and then after that they asked several other questions regarding whether or not  whether or not they had any drugs on them if they had ten thousand dollars or more cash if they had cocaine if they had marijuana they had any other kind of drugs with them and wasn't explained to him it wasn't read to him that it the officer did ask him if he understood and he said yes and he did sign the form it was the same form that both of them signed it was a passenger addition they had already kept them and were asking him and he was told to wait by the car several times they would not let him leave that area and then so my argument is that  i think needs to be addressed it starts from the initial stop i'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about the initial stuff because the actual leading to the initial stuff are what they are i don't think they're sufficient to justify the stop but it sure looks like an interdiction stop which it was because these guys work in highway interdiction and it looks like either a profile stop or some other potential stuff i don't want to argue myself into run versus united states because i understand the implications of that case but it does put a cast on what happens next because what we need to do in this case i think is we have to somewhat define what is the mission for purposes of rodriguez versus united states what things can they do as part of the mission and still have it not exceed the scope of what happened during a traffic stop technically this was just a traffic stop in reality it doesn't look that way but what happens is what is the supreme court mean by the that's that's exactly the issue that we need to address and what i mean by that is they can take the guy's family's license as proof of insurance registration they can  ask some general questions that really very limited once the guy has proven his authority to drive the car and has signed off on the ticket or the morning or whatever then to get them exposed to end and he's supposed to be able to go then in this case what actually is his visit find is that defined generally such as for example what we stopped him because we had a license plate number we suspected him of burglary the type that kind of a stop  as that would be the mission we stopped him for a suspicion of burglary were as we stop somebody for it routine traffic stop because he was going five miles over the speed limit or whatever that would be a tr a drug investigation i'm the only things that need to be asked was you know why did you hit the white line twice is everything ok that's your license your insurance and in this case the driver who is martin is taurus showed his driver's licen show the proof of insurance and he was on the insurance the registration was in somebody else's name all that happened within about the st three minutes of the stop the officer had already agreed or decided  the st three minutes the issue of ability to communicate in english being the questions had all that been determined they had managed to get through it ok except that it was pretty clear that there was a language barrier and they did call what turned out to be deputy maurice you know to do translations we have not contended at least i have not contended that the several minutes it took for getting the receiver to get to the scene was a laura that goes on until just about one thousand and forty dollars where their son description by maurice you know to martinez torres about this but he doesn't really get into the details of explaining the ticket itself because at eleven o two at eleven o two they decide they're going to go check the van now here's what i'm getting they didn't really need to check then although there is some difference in the case law between class and and so forth as to what they can or should do there was no particular need for it but in this case there is a difference and here's where the difference in it plays into two new th circuit cases which i cite in a supplemental brief just recently what happens is they decide they're going to go check them but what they really want to do is go talk to them as ours that's my client ok and what they do is they go check the vin supposedly there's no real comment about that but suppose they did that shouldn't have taken more than about ten or fifteen seconds on the dashboard ok and he had the registration is and all he had to do was look at and say yes checks nobody ever said it didn't check but they had spent almost three minutes just like two hours or two minutes and fifteen to thirty seconds where as talking to appellant gomez i was out there talking to him about is not the speeding partly the the line the foregoing violation they want to know where he's been where he's going he's going to be when he gets there where he comes from he says he's from california and later on i think it's a big deal that he didn't say santa ana i mean santa ana right now and i think i'm in california and pretty sure in any event my point is ok they use that as a ruse to extend the detention so they can try to get information from mr gomes or saudi so that they can find some basis for extending the judgment and getting it down to the point where they can start asking for  well that's what i'm getting at in part yes it's part of the mission if they choose to make it part of the mission and there's a reason for it but the ot the other thing they say both in cortez and also the naval case which i said in court myself they can't use that even if it's a sensibly for officer safety they can't use that to extend the detention so that they can do a general criminal inquiry that's what they were doing here now i want to backtrack a little i'm going to run out of time and i need to say something very quickly from the very start three minutes into this into this stuff deputy more i decided there's something amiss here he doesn't know what he doesn't got reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion nothing but there's something amiss he is not going to let go of this case until he has managed to run down that's why the questions about travel plans that's why the questions go on and on and on that's the whole reason for it he also says that while later on he tells the people you're going to be free to leave it's a sham it's a fraud what it really is it's he's trying to set up a robinette ohio versus robin it's a two asian so we can continue talking ok and he does that i'm starting at fifteen minutes and fifty seven seconds into the stop but what he says in his testimony is he had no intention of letting these people go they were not free to leave when he said you're free to leave it was a lie ok but it was a word to support his extended investigation so what happens is between eleven  it's obvious what they're doing there's a stratagem i cite in a case in there that was recognized in co where the stratagem of going back and forth between the two people that generate some sort of discrepancy is what they do and that's why they do it so what that says that it's fair game for them to at least try and identify who the passengers in the car are not to talk to them but identify them i assume that that's for officer safety purposes but here the only thing he asked mr gomez are sorry in terms of his identity was what's your name he says hey suits you doesn't ask them what your last name he doesn't ask them to have a criminal record he doesn't ask them anything and they don't run him or go or or gina stores on any kind of a computer check to see if they're dangerous or mission too broadly we have abrogated the just of rodriguez what we've really done is i'm going back to pre rodriguez days when they could sort of ask whatever they want and rummage through whatever they want see if they could develop probable cause now what happens repeat it when he comes back they say you understand you're free to leave and we want to ask you some more questions and so they started asking him basically the same questions that they were asking of them as i was already before that to try and compare him up just just like i was pointing out they're looking more ordered him back in and he was never allowed out at all until about twenty five minutes into the site when they're trying to get him to sign the consent form but i met he's been ordered to stand there the whole time nor does he know what is happening with martin passengers in the car and the driver separated from the car he's he's detained because he can't leave without his driver and that's exactly what happened when it just went red and i think i just ran out of my time  but if the court has any questions there is no consensual encounter in this case these people were held and they were held for twenty five minutes twenty seven minutes roughly until they finally got around to asking the ugly questions about other drugs and money in the car and so on and even at that that kind of misrepresented what they were going to look for in terms of searching one thing to in terms of the consent i think in this case the facts are uncontroverted i mean there's no contradiction the facts i think it's a matter of law and independent review by this court because the because there is no dispute that one more factor that and then all they will shut up and the reds one more factor that is that in the fox case which is cited by the government they basically ruled that it was an independent review because the nature of what was said and done is not disputed and is really for the court to assess is this a valid consent or not the consen was tainted from the very get go it was tainted as to the and central government it was seen as the concern of the current i'm over my time and i better be quiet thank you very much but i'm ready to answer any questions you and lastly only slightly more than fifteen minutes seven of which was spent waiting for spend bran's later was so impressively extended that it rose to the level of a constitutional violation and the facts minute stop as you describe it eventually turned to do an hour and a half correct that one so there was a period of time before during the traffic stop and then there's a period of time after they have given their consent to search which of name of a rd person never not right and one mistake the government made in the brief was we stated that the passing year gomez was on the insurance that's actually not the king's the driver martinez or it was the name of the insurance which makes even more bizarre because as moral learn eventually not at this moment eventually you have a driver driving a car believing it's owned by the passenger the passenger said that not my car it was lent to me by this other person martinez so why does the information there was elicited during that five and a half minute block count your honor in order for that for mr gomes nothing argument to hold water this court would have to determine now courtier said you could ask about travel plans but i don't think court is said you can ask about travel plans after you've already written out the warning and after you've explained it to the driver did it mean that this would be a leap i would  not be a leap your honor at this point you have some issues that have been raised in the mind of the officer that few additional questions can clarify and we can send the defendants on their way now i don't think the records as clear by defense counsel in terms of everything being explained he was free to go that was a situation rodriguez the officer testified everything was complete they were free to go and i was going to hold them so this dog could be run in the car that's not entirely clear from what happened here they have a vehicle that's owned by a person that's not present i think there they want to check the vin number on the vehicle and what is important is they actually ask for permission to check of it so even if this were improper they have broader law enforcement purposes and you either have traffic control rather you either have stops based on reasonable suspicion that something is going on which is bro than a traffic stop or you have mere traffic stops but the court seems to me is trying to draw a line between the two in that it doesn't want to blur as i said traffic control into the broader law enforcement activity than my wrong about the way i'm reading rodriguez or what how do you what do you read the rationale or under used i would say rodriguez and maybe it is akin to what your honor is thinking maybe it's different that you start off in a traffic stop with with zero reasonable suspicion whereas if you're doing a whisper stop or drug interdiction and you have these indicators you might have a if at the point of the stop in this case there is this is a routine traffic stop ups or see the touch line for on two occasions he says this guy's not been a very careful driver and when to stop him and they do at what point following that stop or you know it will give you the seven minutes until the translator arrives at what freshener he's given me insurance and he's given the registration which don't match they have different names the driver's license is from california the cars are insured taxes so that's what he knows about thirty seconds and zero the stop so the question is whether that under gomez or starting an argument that you're simply not allowed to ask anything about them and you must simply let that go unless there is a smoking gun proverbial littoral in the car so   and that's a thirteen minute mark minus seven minutes about six minutes into the gomez or something says the vehicle belongs to an unnamed rd party there was in his land and then you have sort of this nonsensical story about going to know i've always been a bit confused by the police practice i mean it's not just in this case it's ubiquitous so you're free to go but it seems like officers don't really meet you're free to go well again  just draw a line and say if an officer says you're free to go that stops questioning period so a bright line and then the officers are going to know that if they want to ask additional you mind i want to run the dog around the car he's like no i i'm not going to be ok with that and so all of that delay was without consent which is very different than the case earlier where they have consented to let me let me play this this so you the officers as you're free to go and the driver says no thanks i go thank you and goodbye and leaving in the officer does anything at that point to stop and then at that before he said so why did he say you're free to go if you will the risks there were some that were free to go and there were some that were were afterwards but you know there's always sort of a line drawing that a district court is in and you be able to sion of making and this court is then and it's always better if you can do th a consensual way in the person willing to speak with you you know we don't nd guess bad decisions that criminals make because we've been here all day but they said yeah i'm willing to speak to you like you're you're willing i'm willing to answer questions you can check that then you know agree with mr kerry that at least for mr gomes he could not reasonably perceive that he was free to go because he couldn't go anywhere it's a list of artists like so he could drive well there is a and i'm glad you brought that up because i wanted to correct the record on that there's still an inevitable discovery from martinez or to give them certain permission to search the car they search the car they find the drugs those drugs are still you know the will have to go get a warning get mr gomes was on time but eventually that is going to be used against him later off so and one thing i did want to point out about an argument raised by the strict as our teams will lie that the government somehow waved behind versus north carolina argument that was discussed by time versus north carolina raises line on a three fifths need so the court considered it did not make it in the courts over them it ordered that there is no way that that was waived unknown to the court or not considered by the court so in terms of a reasonable mistake the law bill on that bench for approaching you're somewhere in the region twenty five years and these you're free to go cases are starting to blur for me i mean if i could i think we should have a line of cases called free to go because really i mean is i said earlier these are ubiquitous there's officers are always say you're free to go and nobody is free to go really i mean when you've got a police officer standing next to your car  characteristics that led us to conclude that there wasn't a detention and it wasn't voluntary interaction with law enforcement in our recent opinion games your honor we would i would i would rest on the district courts factual findings in regard to consent that you know they're not clearly erroneous i think we said it on page fifty one the presence of multiple officers is a factor but it does not look like they were involved in any way in the investigation in fact if you listen just the audio you wouldn't know that there was more than two deputies on the scene so how many police cars were seen but at the point where the where they start the ninety minute of circumstances on this free to go jurisprudence in there are four cars and four police officers whether it's true on the video or not it's not a particular concern of mine i'm perfectly willing to one thing is again that last officer showed up far after the period of consent was given so it's unclear how many were i think they get the three to four at the time that in summer there's no facts at all they were standing around him at any weapons drawn in a clear pa deputy mora handed the ticket to mr martinez if the sixteen minute mark he had completed the warning ticket at the eleven o two mark it is the record when when but one thing i would sum up is everything here operated under the umbrella of consent again the been the questioning and the search of the vehicle and i would just ask this court you know i don't think there's a real pushback against the idea of the translator coming but imagine you know you're free to go with my answers more questions you realize you're free you're free to go it's very difficult to nd guess what was going on in martinez towards his head but we just have the record it here everything was consensual thank you very and i'm just going to briefly address the court on a couple of points and then leave the rest of the time for this to gary but if this was a drug interdiction stuff from the very beginning is where sheriffs this was a share food waiting in the median of the freeway that the sheriff don't get people speeding ticket their traffic tickets they better there because the interdiction he was a task force officer who had thirty days to do the drug interdiction and he was with that helped you with that help you were it seems to me that it would hurt if this were a drug interdiction case and that there was some sort o probable cause for drug interdiction on that route that would be adverse to your i don't know well i think that it was just all a ruse from the very beginning the whole stop the  reasons for extending the more long in the the traffic stop and that our clients wills were over boring and initially they were just you know they were just acquiescing to the officers show up with already and then after that there was just no way for them to get to leave or get out or say no i don't want to talk to they spoke spanish only they were kept separate from each other the officers kept going from one to the other from way other to the other about four times my client asked are you done are you done yet and then they said no we're we're not done yet but just stay right there you can't go anywhere just stay right there you're free to leave but you just stay right there by the truck by the front of the truck and then after after that they're just continue to acquiesce to the so with already there's three officers there the lights are growing their office or else are all standing around there it there's nowhere else to go they're isolated up in the middle of the freeway this case is not a consensual consensual case they may have said the not but you know he's just letting them do what they said they were going to do which was searching the car they started taking the car apart they searched it for an hour and a half there on the side of the road was twenty five yards to the front but to the west of the car and then my client was in the bushes fifty yards away so it's not likely that they could have kicking and you know stop them from breaking the car down because they'd do the officer testified several times i'm not going to let them go i'm not going to let them go i have never i never had any intent to let them go no intention of letting you know i'm from very early on he said he had some suspicion this is like in about three minutes and he had some suspicion he was not going to let him go he didn't have any reasonable suspicion that he had that g specifically said two things in his testimony one was that while he told the people they were free to go they were not free to go he had no intention of letting them go and he wasn't to let him go until he got through the  sort of this back and forth inquiry of them until he could uncover enough inconsistency to go further that one thing i'd like to say this is really easier in a lot of ways i'd like to help the court with this part at eleven o two more issue has gotten there he's the translator and he's available it discuss what the tickets all about he gives a little bit but not very much they then tell martina's tourist stay here we're going to go check your vin and talk to your passenger who was your own would you research the timer for this gentleman please thank you ok thank you much so what happens is he then goes to go in as our saudi who's passenger in the car has been ordered to stay as a passenger in the car he doesn't tell them he's free to go because he's not they haven't even given mr martinez stores his documents back that doesn't happen for another almost four minutes and they send start asking mr gomes or saudi a whole bunch of questions about travel plans but it goes past that it's more than what's been permitted under the case law there started to ask him what are you going to do when you get to texas where  whole bunch of questions as far as not knowing the name of the registered owner that doesn't come out at that point they ask him something like whose car is this and he says it's a friend of mine but more it doesn't you know more than a recent ask him what's the friend's name that doesn't come up until after nine hundred and fifty six dollars in the sequence of events and what's happened in the meantime as they went back to martinez stores talked to him gave him his tickets or has already taken started  let him go and then ordered him back at that point every time they break every time they break they tell martina's tourist stay here what's worse if you want to know what martinez torres was thinking at about twenty two minutes into the stop they martina's torres asked if he cannot make a phone call and they say not right now we're going to let you go soon which means you're not let go get what else could it mean and so if you want to know what mar our thank you because i think we understand the argument pretty well and we're going to be making a very thorough review of the record so i want to thank all of you for your arguments this morning and you are free to go