who will do anything to stop a ship in search for bounty they are not lawful they make up false narratives in the hide their things on october the night two thousand and thirteen mr claus you know hispanic driving on texas plates is driving down interstate forty near memphis between mile and the drug task force agent with his cane a dog in the vehicle is that mile marker between forty three and forty four forty two and forty three my client passes by moments later task force agent he'll see bede's all reaching speeds between eighty and eighty five miles an hour testifies he was not after is he was heading to his fellow officer trooper mcgovern and observes him from the distance of three hundred twenty feet more than a football field then he was following a tractor trailer truck too closely he said it was he estimated it was about four car links away from a football field he later says in his when he was cross examined then he really wasn't sure how close that he was in the word he used ya bald ali and it is not an objective standard it's a subjective standard and one that is not permitted when you have to articulate facts as to why you stop someone for following too closely what is happening in tennessee and i assume other jurisdictions as well the way the following too closely statute reads it doesn't give any hard line measurements it's just what's reasonable and prudent in so this officer in an effort to try to sell the stop in his report says you know what mr klaas you know was not taking in fact of the conditions of the construction conditions that were going on in the area but when cross examine him it well there really wasn't any construction area in this whole period no signs of it no construction nothing he later goes on to say i would have stopped him if he was a hundred and sixty feet away more than nine carling's he testified that he was taught that how you determine whether or not someone is following too closely or not he testifies that he would have stopped him at a distance of one hundred sixty feet which he would had been traveling at more than ninety miles an hour the bottom line to officer hill's testimony is what he said i just know this is a man that does not know he's out there supposedly to deal with the  one foresman of traffic and force that's not his real reason why he's out there he doesn't know the distance between the white stripes which is ten feet he doesn't know the distance between the disc at the distance between the each strike which is thirty in the distance between the two is is thirty feet and he talked about the highway traffic so that is in the record in this case for sure but the lives of these two officers don't end the ok so so the videos in the record and interesting in this case judge campbell when it came to the issue of the credibility of whether whether these two defend wife gave written consent he parted on that he didn't address that issue and one of the reasons i believe that he chose not to say because in the report the officers say  written can step in the discovery packet there was a note from the federal government written consent but it wasn't in there when i asked for it didn't exist and then they testified later well we thought we got written consent the task force spy agency in charge in this case and his deposition stated i thought they got written consent it wasn't there in their report to as to the book the line just graphic that that you have serious concerns about my using that language that strong language when they were arrested there was no mention of a prescription bottle for suboxone anywhere in the written reports it was not in the discovery they didn't turn it over so you have trooper mcgovern resigned there wasn't a prescription bottle then he said there was then he made up three different stories that my client's wife allegedly said to him on different occasions that's all in the brief that's all in the record and i think if you look at the standard of review when you look at the record as a whole that you will find that the district court campbell was in error the facts of this case are modern boggling on the stop the fictitious pretense upon pretense of oh it's going to take me twenty minutes to write a f ticket it was all a ruse to bomb more time this court has upon that if there's probable cause on all you think there's drug in the car and here's the car that's been stopped and run over here is the car with a dog in it that's trained to sniff drugs and yet he never takes the dog out testimony in the record of officer hill thinking they were acting suspicious we thought that they were drugs because the story was that they thought that all along and he gave no good reason then the question wasn't he just said no i never testified that about a minute twenty twenty one he shakes your client's hand say you're free to go as far as i'm concerned absolutely and yet he takes it he takes i'm going to go get this ticket i'm going to write you a courtesy citation ticket three minutes into the record almost nineteen minutes and five seconds left he comes in and says here you go all that time was to stall i thought the record was  had called and dispatch to check out your license demands license valid and are there any outstanding warrants and that was taking time to get it and it was he was waiting for dispatch to get back to you but that's what he climbs that's what he clim kept coming back and saying i want this i got this ticket keep coming back to him and saying just going to take a few minutes or we're having trouble getting our phones aren't working right here not just the credibility terminator you argued great today or you lied it's obvious he lied yes answered and if you look at the video the video supports that he had it pretty hard for us to read versus credibility you really argue that because i wrote it so well in the brief you know ok all right very very good it's that's incorrect according to the record if the court were to go to record intrade number one o four which is the transcript of the suppression hearing at page add the numbers for eighty seven through four nanny the court will see that mr combs are asked trip if he was familiar with the highway manual he said no he would have to go look it up and he said but it gives the distances and trip memory actually states that you would actually have to go up to the interstate to specifically on page four now any request to the questions let me try to ask it this way the slam the standard which you know is ten feet correct answer i don't know that question you talked about it in a meeting yesterday that the line is ten feet long supposed to be the standard critics or i didn't talk about how long the lines were supposed to be it was asked me and i said there is no way to tell if you take the measurement out there or measure it so as to that point i think what treatment grammarian and i believe later it discusses that lands are different in different places but i may have that just in my mind from prep and the witnesses i know i just look at it was a specific page at this time the united states mitts that there was probable cause for the stop of the vehicle information the suspicious activity of miss closet her movements of courts watch the film you can see it from the time the trigger stops behind them when they pull over you can see your hands at that point move in and she's flipped her hair doing all sorts of things even before the officer walks up to the car then at the time of being up the up at the vehicle the conflicting stories about where they were going they were going to visit her father in law army her father his father in law but they didn't know what hospital one closer so it was a hospital and cynthia closet cities that house but they didn't she didn't have the address that all those instances that are cited as by the united states since birth they rise to reason suspicion of criminal activity being the foot and then when once miss closet to disclose that she had the substance with her that gave rise to the probable cause which happened right at about the twenty one minute mark because trooper mcgovern walked up at seventeen minutes and twenty one seconds i want to say and he said it was three to five thirty five minutes when she made that statement which would put it that twenty minutes to twenty one it was your position that regarding the traffic's or standard is reasonable suspicion well the i believe the circuit actually sometimes uses reasonable suspicion and probable cause which one applies here i think both would apply here i mean we can meet both standards is what i'm trying to articulate which one should apply i think reasonable suspicion your honor but i know that the court the court i know that there are very in cases well the officer for a traffic stop particularly looking at that you're following too closely is it reasonable for based on all the things that i'll sure knows at that time to make that stop and here based on their training and even this circuit has given different opinions as to the use of can is a driver manual appropriate to use is it not appropriate to use that to say that it's unreasonable for the stop or even improbable or not based upon probable cause the government would submit incorrect so the officers actions based on even the law of this circuit based on which case you look at is correct as even using the main will and so probable cause exists as well as a reasonable suspicion of  reasonable that the statute is more brawl to be able to apply it to different circumstances about the fact i mean both hill and gun mary are drug enforcement part of the task force right yes or probably the commissar has a point they probably are really cruising to look for drug dealers in routes particularly suspicious hispanics from texas is that a problem for you guys are strongly take the position that this had nothing to do with the which i don't think that just being from texas i don't think there's anything in the record to support that trooper hit me agent hills or officer hills testimony was that he was behind the vehicle didn't even see who was inside till he walked up the course he ran the tag it's texas tag but i don't believe that there's any the united states emits that there's nothing in the records suggests that the officer or trip down memory had stopped or even they couldn't we pulled all the traffic violation to to establish the standard and defense counsel agreed he couldn't establish the standard for selective enforcement argument so there's nothing in the record for these officers to dictate that they were stopping only hispanics or predominantly hispanics or or anything or drivers on the texas license or driver's route from texas to texas license plates they're not pirates are not stealing money or valuables release notes are the only now and their motive they say they're there i mean obviously they're there to prevent drug trafficking but we look at their subjective what they hope to get or do we look at the objective evidence and whether was between the stripes so when officer hill because his testimony has got to be the one that you have to base whether or not he had any are observed objective standards on which to base t stop and it's just too far what it is it is impossible for a man who is more than a football field behind this vehicle when he testifies he was for links the way it cannot be done and i want to want to suggest to the court that these officers were quick with the following equipment but he had the camera which we have supposed to have audio on it the audio wasn't working supposed to have speed on it the speed wasn't hooked up he did have was he did have a working radar gun he'll do it he did not use in that he had the drug dog which he did not use off barry when he comes he has a on him audio recorder all he's got to do it's what his body all he's going to suppress it when i ask why don't you use that so we could hear what was saying whether you could find probable cause or when these people allowed you to have consent he said well two reasons if i press the button i have to go fifty miles to download it and then when i download it becomes evidence t these crime fighting tools are great for law enforcement when it shows the crime they are horrible for law enforcement officers who really don't uphold the higher standards and perhaps judge griffin i should apologize for that part analogy but it was the manner in which these officers chose not to use the tools that they're given quire you know they're not required to use and now there's a sea change in this country today to do that it's going on right now but they're not required to but  the video were left with a silent film and the problem with this all for certain is they normally when you press the button it goes back thirty seconds in this case lucky for m it went back thirty six seconds so you can see in that video what how can he say he's following too closely from there you say that i saw the video it looked like when i first came on these fairly close behind that tractor trailer we had to start slowing down we knew because he's going to hit a chord in his testimony when that comes on eighty or eighty five miles an hour he's so far away when you look at the video when you're that far away items appear closer and then as you pull closer you see the distance and then when you can actually stop it in k l and you count the lines one two three four five six i mean one two three at least cars that there may be a violation there is not why are not when it kind of looks like that because from because from one hundred and three hundred twenty feet away where he testifies where he made this this this there's no way you can establish probable cause there's no reasonable basis and to couple that with these false narratives that he uses to try to support it so for those reasons i