criminal investigation concerning house located in pocatello idaho at seven ten jefferson and today i'm here to ask this court to reverse the district's court's decision and suppress all evidence that was gained from a stop this is because were especially at the beginning i did watch the video several times this a little bit indistinct and it wasn't clear whether mr actually was doing what sort of check he was doing when he got back into his  says that the address that he has is not the place he says he's currently living that's correct and after returning to his cruiser troubridge we've been calls in registration check but also calls in for drug him where are you coming from he said i live in idaho falls and when he asked him where do you live now he couldn't give an address or even an apartment number and then he also said some things about he see nervous and agitated which which i couldn't tell from from the video so as they have enough putting us together why aren't those enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion that would justify looking into other issues to appreciate this case or that i think when you take a step back in time in this case occurred before the rodriguez and evans decisions were released under the ball as case the court had said that  drug running the drug dog around a car during otherwise lawful search is permitted and what happened was there was a lot of cases that we're not going to look at what was done during the stop but we're going to look at the amount of time during the stop tuck in so what happened is law enforcement became less focused on reasonable suspicion and more focused on whether they were expeditious completing the stop and i th just explain at that point the officer knew he'd been at the house right he had trouble giving a local address it looked but a bit of an evasive answer why is this not enough where you can have your why isn't the credibility of the two detectives involved relevant as well in terms of their experience and doesn't that inform what they knew at the time the judge occurred is talking about i don't believe the officers credibility question that all  place where you have when you have here is a series of innocent factors you don't have any concrete reasons to give where another officer had right even participated in a controlled by why isn't that enough does anyone that goes to the seven ten jefferson house and leaves do they leave because i would be i mean i was looking at all of they were and we're looking at all of it and i i'm really trying to give you a fair chance to respond to the question but we're looking at all of it he's come from a drug house that he's at this point he hasn't yet denied coming from the drug house to give a local address the registration is a different name he seems agitated why is it not enough isn't it is there another case we can look to where comparable facts have been found to be lacking or what is it in particular or yes here are you can look at both the the  many minutes i believe was eighteen minutes into the traffic stop decided that he was going to do conduct a terry frisk in my client and it's our position that at that point attenuated time into the stop he did not have reasonable suspicion want to conduct terry first because it was not necessary for officer safety i didn't have a reasonable fear that my client was armed and dangerous at that point what about the fact that the defendant apparently was observed reaching into his pocket several times after he was asked to exit the vehicle and submit to the terry for us what happened there was testimony that at least once in the car he reached into his pocket i believe  in the transcript again i'm looking at the time for you what's the place in the record where you think that's that frist needed stop place well if you look at the record at i believe it that page excerpt to record page want to wait in lines two or three fourteen and this is to bridge these words he says if he doesn't know what's in his pockets and i don't know what's in his pockets and i can't clearly say that that's not a weapon that i'm going to check and find out that's not the standard under the minnesota versus dickerson or discords i e decision officer and thus the incriminating nature of an object is readily apparent off you can't read and continue to manipulate the packets to determine what that object is so once you can get the initial pat down if you don't if the officers and i will to determine in that there's an object it might be a weapon then that's the end of the inquiry and that's where  and we took it over your time but we'll give you a minute for rebuttal thank you we'll hear from the government it please the court counsel my name is david robinson i have the privilege of representing the united states in this matter the first question called upon by this court to be answered is at the time called in the canine check the records check was that action supported by reasonable suspicion the answer to that question is yes your honor you asked about the timeframe approximately the first initial contact between  that's the end of his mission the only other thing would be to make sure that the car is registered and has insurance which he does so so it seems like at that point anything that happens after that point has to be based on is to both suspicion and the only thing i didn't see very i just seem very very thin as to what he had he was seen in a dry care house and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he saw that the registration was registered to someone else is evan after reasonable suspicion to then detain him after he's already decided i'm not going to give you a ticket which is the mission yes your honor in rodriguez it was held by justice ginsburg that beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket and officers mission includes verifying that the cars lawfully registered the presence of insurance and other things of that nature but this was there's no allegation it wasn't lawfully registers or spencer or somebody else  what's the the problem with that is if you look to excerpts of record volume number two you had expert testimony on page sixty one sixty two that drug narcotics traffickers typically use vehicles not registered to themselves to avoid detection right but so lots of people have cars that are i just into themselves also so you've got that point that was registered to someone else which is consists but certainly very minimal there's testimony that mr hoffman response to where you coming from i live in i hope i would say that the response the trooper has been a trooper since two thousand and seven and when he asked that question it struck him as evasive and i do cite the transcript of record page sixty five on volume two saying that typically in response to that question he would have expected i'm coming from a house a grocery store to respond alternately where you're from he found odd but your honor is correct that standing alone is not reasonable suspicion it's the taliban the circumstances to return back was moderately aggressive his aggression obviously creased way more in the video but there was also the issue of nerves your honor no nerves alone are not sufficient for reasonable suspicion and i did not submit that to the court however the officer when he told him i'm not go you his nerves did not abate his nerves maintained and that he's noticed as being suspicious so in council tries to draw parallels to united states versus back out of the circuit in this case is a little bit different especially on the issue of nerves but in to tally the circumstances your honor of leaving a drug house not knowing where he lives minor revision to the question nerves you would have expected to bait and also driving a truck registered to somebody else the government respectfully submit that that is reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts reasonable to do what what's the next step the united states versus sharp or the next step you took to answer your question directly your honour's he went back to his vehicle and he called for a canine he pretty much instantly found out that no canines were available in this is why dispatch was running in the background this takes another minute and a half two minutes in terms of take the record is unclear because it seems that multiple searches were going on at the same time so you have dispatch looking up records and he's making phone calls simultaneously so he was also checking getting a new record check on the vehicle to see if there were outstanding warrants but checking for felony conviction so does this in nervousness evasion do and a person's criminal record may be of marginal relevance but of course if somebody has been convicted of drug trafficking ten times in the past or have a clean record either confirms or dispel that reasonable suspicion which may inform the officers next actions of whether or not to prolong the stop or to actually seek out a drug dog in the like your honor so basically anyone who sees a person leave a suspected drug house who then has a minor traffic infraction can be stopped because you can see whenever you pull somebody over there say like why did you stop me and then he looks nervous and that's enough to run a felony check that's that seems very thin to me so is it because of the registration that's enough to tip it over to the other side i would the factors in tandem your honor i think the weightiest factor for the government was the drug house the drug house was very substantial so then anyone who stops a drug house can be pulled over and harassed i wouldn't say harassment or perhaps investigate what i would say is that jefferson house in the manner to let us not forget that the defendant stopped there for a mere ten minutes came in and out it wasn't on thanksgiving day and he stayed for three hours but the manner in which he stopped at the time of night is also suspicious that somebody who's a vase of with law enforcement exhibiting great nervousness doesn't know his own address and who was driving a vehicle each isolated by themselves your honor does not equal reasonable suspicion i agree with the court but it's taking everything together in this unique fact pattern reasonable suspicion doesn't lend itself to nice neat and clean rules and so i am sorry to resist you asking me if that's enough on these facts i say yes on other facts perhaps not your own i'd need to know more about the hypothetical in which we are engaging i notice my time is dwindling so i'd like to turn to the next issue if i may which is the continuation the trooper acted to try to confirm or dispel his reasonable suspicion by running the warrants the probation and the canine he discovers three important pieces of information for the eight minutes he's in the car so to give you a time frame three minutes and twenty six with the initial step eight minutes out so we're twelve minutes into the traffic stop that he reproaches the vehicle and speaks to the passenger or sign anything on hoffman so then he runs as if and says oh oh goody he is you know i'm probation and now i know he's hanging out with a convicted felon so i'll probably it's a violation of his probation so that i have a reason to stop this street isn't that what happens when we're talking about the subject of intentions of the officers when we say oh golly good what i'm trying to get the court to focus on is they did find things on mr hoffman he does have a toss and when i write yes and hostility code for violence against law enforcement officer hostility code different than a caution c same thing it is very confused in the record your honor and it's reference to page one hundred one page eighty eight but they kind of have some variations on terms that were the one code he got one not two speaking outside the record my understanding for i don't state police was it was a caution code for violence which i believe is just one but that's outside we don't have a we don't really have that so yes and it is kind of muddy in the record but there was an alert for some form of hostility so he gets from mr hoffman now he's confronted with two things he needs to do that's reasonably related to his law enforcement potential probation violation in addition to the narcotics investigation and he has to answer both now he does and he dresses both investigations with reasonable diligence he gets mr she thought of the car and after speaking with him for two minutes he learns that he's on probation he also learns that fourteen minutes and fourteen seconds into the traffic stop that he should not be associating with felons and then ten minutes is a long time counsel it is your honor however it's not necessarily the time frames supreme court is rodriguez says we do not base these things on  timeframes or expectations that was the primary holding of rodriguez i understand i just want you for him to time yesterday is one thing after another in this case it's quite us extend sequence yes to justify the police officers actions i would reference united states versus sharpe in which we analyze whether or not the officer acted reasonably to confirm or dispel his suspicions and in this case operating alone he pulled esther the officer says i won't arrest you he says to mr estate if i could he have arrested him a probation violation at that time your honor and i'm speaking outside the record and i notice my time is over if i may respond to your question it is the policy procedure that they call probation and parole to verify the terms of probation to report and then they can either say go ahead and arrest him on an issue warrant or things of that nature so i mean there has to be some additional communication so off the record my response to your question would be i don't think more communication with the oncall probation officer ok i see that my time has expired do you honor's have any additional questions for me now and that thank you your honors is a privilege i ask that you affirm the district court thank you for hearing i respectfully s earlier five minutes into the stop and they both followed the drug the coffee the drug dog was made right after the call for the driver's records check and then right afterwards trooper actually embark on the calls for the the drug convictions in the probation checks nothing there's no new facts that occurred between those two pro nations now in the district court's decision focused on some factors which occurred much later in the sequence and as the