the next case on our calendar is united states versus timmy wallace and fifteen the arresting officers had all of the information necessary to complete the lawful purpose of a traffic stop they had done a rugby search which is a search that includes every database in the this rugby search revealed that this was not a stolen car it's not clear who ran that report right and and you rely on the collective doctorate collective knowledge doctrine to say that if any of the officers knew the results of the report the knowledge can be all the others but it doesn't united states versus cologne explained that collective knowledge doctrine permits one officer to conduct a search in reasonable reliance on the instructions of another not that if one officer has information that might negate reasonable suspicion that knowledge is imputed to all other officers at the scene your honor first of all we're not relying solely on the collective knowledge doctrine although the officers none of them admitted to doing the rugby search first of all they all edited to knowing that a rugby search was done so every one of them knew that the rugby was there and that a search had been completed second sergeant alston testified without any contradiction that this data that came up in the rugby search was something that an officer would have reviewed right away so the practice of the n y p d was that this information would be immediately known to the officer so it can be inferred from that especially since there was no contrary testimony that these officers did know that the purpose of the search was completed not to mention that if this court were to accept that the collective knowledge doctrine doesn't apply here or that these facts that i just set forth the not supporting inference then all that any officer would have to do to avoid suppression is deny that he was the one who made the search and i would submit actually that given the officers very clear recollection of everything else about the stop that their refusal or or failure to edm it who did the rugby search was a little bit cagey the district court credit and the testimony of the officers and here this was just search of the door jam the officers weren't searching the whole car right and doesn't class tell us that it's permissible to search to to look at a van as part of a standard traffic stop well as part of a standard traffic stop judge i think those are the key words it's not permissible to continue looking after the standard traffic stop is done moreover officer haskell vic testified he was not looking at this van as part of the standard traffic stop the reason he looked for this door jam then was because he believed the car might be stolen which seven minutes before he searched the door jam then the officers admittedly knew that it was not constitution and that going to this issue of the alleged tool marks on the door they not only knew that this car was owned by mr wallace but they saw that he had the keys so obviously you know that he did not need to make a false and forced entry to this car they saw a papa john's sign there was a pizza on the seat they knew exactly what mr wallace was doing there was no basis for them to go further and continue to look for the son of a stolen car which they already knew was not stolen and certainly officer has given saying that under his training and experience a so called vin swap can a question about the opinion below and i will ask it to the government as well the district court said that one of the main issues was whether there was sufficient information of possession of the officers by seven twenty two or so to mean that they should never have proceeded to the next step she said that but then it doesn't actually appear in the opinion does it that the main issue is never really answered in the opinion unless the government could point me to where i may have missed it correct your honor i have read that opinion with a fine tooth comb many times and i do not find any place where that issue was addressed and will thank you and returning again to the issue of the vin swap which is why officer has convict claimed that he continued the search the knowledge that vin swaps can happen does not amount to reasonable articulable facts showing that even swap has happened here and the carroll case in the tenth circuit which i would urge this court to adopt made that point very clear that just knowing vince can be altered does not allow continuation of the stop in the absence of any evidence that the van had been tampered with and here there was none but here here you have the marks on the door you have the black tape the sort of unusual way in which the registration form is taped on you have some of the numbers missing from the van not not on the dashboard but on the registration form as i understand it and you have the district court saying she didn't find credible the reason given for why those numbers were missing the district court never made any findings as to why the numbers were missing and the officers i believe actually no i don't believe the officers did did agree that there was water damage on the registration and even if these signs had been even if in the absence of a rugby search these signs would amounted to suspicion they certainly didn't amount to reasonable suspicion after the rugby search revealed that this was not a stolen car that the dashboard then matched certainly the visible numbers on the registration also matched what was on the dashboard then there was the defendant had the keys to the car there is nothing it was concededly not illegal to have a registration sticker taped to the windshield so i mean maybe if they had looked at the door at the dashboard then at seven twenty one i mean at the if they had looked for the door jam then at seven twenty one that would have been a reasonable thing to do but minutes for a part it will hear from the government district court said the main issue was whether there was sufficient information in possession of the officers by seven twenty two pm or so to mean that they should not never have proceeded to the next step and yet she doesn't answer that in her opinion unless you could point me where i've missed it i think the court is right i cannot point you to anything in the district court's opinion dressing that specific question but i respectfully submit your orders that that we don't need to answer that question because under the supreme court's decisions in class and rodriguez it's settled law that during a lawful traffic stop which we have here for defective brake light that the officers inspections of vin numbers whether it's on the dashboard and visible from the outside or whether it's on the door jam is part of the ordinary incidence of a traffic stop that can be conducted without reasonable suspicion but they looked at the vin dash board and it matched whatever registration information was also there they knew this car was not stolen at seven twenty two didn't they check was done by you know it wasn't stolen well i think officer has give it testify that he did not know that it was not stolen at the time there were two officers actually on the ground at the scene as kavik an officer bought a hand and although someone did run a check at seven twenty two of the database there's no evidence in the record to show who actually reviewed that or what information they were able to review in the short period of time of the stop here up here but here klassen rodriguez counseled that an officer even without any reasonable suspicion and in class there it was  there was no suspicion at all that the car was stolen in class isn't a little bit different because there the officer only checked the dashboard because he couldn't find the van in the door jamb so here you have the officers seeing the van in full in class you didn't  well look going class though however they did review they first went to the door jam they actually did try to inspect it there and then they went to the dashboard but class went further and established that there is no reasonable expectation in the both the dashboard which is visible from the outside as well as the limited inquiry of the vin on the door jam that with established by superman corps and it's still good law after rodriguez i think the stepping back your honour's the point here is that class and rodriguez said a bright line test as to what are ordinary incidents of a traffic stop that for which you do not need reasonable suspicion and that are part of the mission of the traffic stop and here  a limited inquiry of the vins which occurred here did satisfy and fall within that bright line test of what or ordinary insult once the dashboard van checks out and proves that he is the owner according to the registration of that car where those rodriguez or class tell you that they can keep going until they look at the other then what is there can they keep going even if the other van was there until they find something else can they keep going forever until they find something suspicious they get they cannot keep going for every hour as hell then rodriguez is a traffic stop mission is to address the traffic violation which was a direct defective brake light and as well as to attend to related safety concerns and what was the traffic stop mission here they thought after the one backlight didn't work they thought it was stolen and at some point they established that this wasn't a stolen car wasn't that the admission a white why why would you keep going after you prove that he's the owner of the car as of the purpose of the traffic stop was the defective brake light how top of the door that indicated there might have been stolen they thought it might be stolen but at some point they knew this wasn't a stolen car what right did they have what articulable suspicion can they have and none ceded after they knew it device and the database check would not have alleviated his concern that the car may be stolen in light of all the other factor is a let me go through that well sure he even assuming that after has occurred but up to that point officer has been saw the tools he then asked mr wallace for his driver's license and registration which by the way is required under new york law that says you need to provide mr wallace didn't have his registration putting that aside from the car though well there was a registration sticker on the car and that's what officer has convicted and he methodically when mr wallace did not have his registration papers to provide he then looked to the registration sticker on the on the windshield and there was indication that the car might have been stolen because the the the registration sticker with all of this but at some point they knew it wasn't stolen why did they continue the search after that point that's my question that's dispel the suspicion based on the other factors here the officers methodically took the limited steps in order to confirm or dispel theirs their suspicions which is what this court held in gomez is the appropriate course of conduct but go violation of the fourth amendment did not they did because the officers there were engaged immediately from the star did detoured from the mission of the traffic stop into drug related inquiries the may should have this traffic stop was what tell me again  mission of the traffic stop was to both investigate for the defective brake light and again and also to attend to related safety concerns which includes whether or not a car is properly registered  you know who i thought you tell me it was whether to make sure the car was stolen or not that is part of whether or not a car stolen is and at some point who didn't know that it wasn't stolen after they got the rugby report who wasn't that didn't know it was officers haskell vic and monaghan the two officers who were actually on the ground defense counsel makes a lot about the fact that sergeant alston testified that the rug report would indicate that it was not stolen sergeant alston wasn't on the scene he was sitting in the back of the police car during the almost the entirety of the stop the officers who are admitting he never caught that and said hey this car is not stolen when he got the rugby report there was no there was no evidence regarding that the relaying of that information to the therefore went and asked mr was can i check the vin on the door jamb and that's what he did and that's what led to the arrest so it's a very limited narrowly tailored inquiry based on the suspicion that he had that the car still may be stolen i think as the court probably seen through reviewing these cases it is not unusual for officers to check multiple vins in order to confirm that the vatican until they find something wrong while here we're talking about a very limited we're not tell you what every been across the vehicle of class only extends to two specific bins which is the public then of on the dashboard as well as the door jam and that's all that's happened here it falls squarely within the president of class and rodriguez for them to conduct that done during a lawful traffic stop there is nothing in class nothing in rodriguez and nothing in any case cited by the government which holds that a traffic stop may be revived once it's finished in order to take a second look at another vin number or to looking or to keep looking once the traffic stop is done it's done rodrigues made that very clear in plain english and even if there is no expectation or diminished expectation of privacy and then says there is an expectation of privacy in not being on walls only detained once the traffic stop is done and there is nothing in any case not class not rodriquez not any case that chaz that a traffic stop can be revived in order to you know continue with any routine incidents that the officer thinks he may have missed when you say river i've just doesn't say you can keep looking until you find something bad no it doesn't say that and in fact i think it's very clear that you can't do that and you know focusing on the rugby report for a minute if haskell bitch and monaghan who were who conducted the search didn't know that the rugby report had been run what was the harm in double checking that the van on the dashboard matched the van in the door jamb in light of the various suspicious circumstances here first of all officer as coma who was on the ground and whose testimony was credited by the district court testified that he gave the rugby to officer has given and received it back from officer has kavik and there's certainly no testimony that officer asked if they gave it to anyone else i think we can conclude that officer has a vague despite his lack of recollection did that rugby search but even if it wasn't him sergeant alston who even if he was not out of the  police car was at least on the scene testified that it was the practice to review the important details of the rugby right away the name the date of birth address license registration vin and whether the car came up stolen and whoever you know if if this court were to hold that whoever did this rugby search can just keep it to himself and let the other officers poke around in the hope that they may find something that would create an incentive to nullify rodrigues that officer can do a search and then say all right i'll put this rugby on the seat let's look around for a few more minutes and see what happens i don't think that's a