suppress evidence and not a mystery seems motion to suppress state we make that argument based on two principles the first would be that the duration of this traffic stop was too long and that there was not reasonable cers suspicion to vehicle stopped on the side of the road to the time when mr rivkin was removed from the current gave some incriminating statements that about approximately thirty two total minutes heads had passed during those thirty two minutes it's also obvious from the video that two officers approached the vehicle a total of five different times trooper more hisor a trooper with the illinois state police testify that he may have smelled him as upon his first approached the vehicle but the records pretty clear he much of the thirty minutes or so of that was spent with the defendant alongside the road before he removed them from his car was attempting to figure out what was going on with this terrorist watch list at the end of the hearing the trial court ruled against my client deny the motion washer us and suppress evidence and denied the motion to suppress statements which was my first argument which is that this stop the duration was too long without reasonable or tickle suspicion in terms of the duration i don't think there's any dispute that for a normal traffic stop thirty two minutes is too long the state doesn't argue in the brief they didn't argue it at the trial court level so the next second the next question that we would have would be was there reasonable suspicion in order to be able established through this here is watch list the officer was justified in continuing to look into this terrorist watch list situation the problem with that ruling is that it's contradicted by a united states supreme court case by the name of the united states versus offense and determine whether or not the officer making the raster or extending the detention based on it has complied with the bounds of  first district basically was people versus lighting indicate that indicates that the burglar is really in the state to establish whether or not they're the underlying agency have this reasonable suspicion or probable cause and that makes sense realistically myster electronically adept way of doing a terrorist watch list if there's really no difference the law enforcement agency saying hey watch out for this so the question will be did the trial court after a reasonable city have evidence that the underlying easy had a reasonable suspicion in order to be able to to issue the bullet and in this case the answer is clearly there's nothing in the record we don't know what agency issued it we don't know why it was  very has to be on the state because the first the burn they are the ones claiming that they're relying upon this this alert and secondly it's impractical impossible for the defendant to be able to effectively challenge this and that's because the underlying agency in this case isn't even known who issued it and under those circumstances how can you possibly challenge that other than getting up there and saying i'm not a terrorist how can you possibly challenge whether or not you're on the line agency actually happy simple suspicion  had he should have any tickets back to mr here and told him to be on his way unless he had independent reasonable suspicion otherwise and here the trial court's ruling is very very important because there are really two factors that the state heavily relies upon  the reasonable suspicion was developed during the course of this stuff the first is the alleged smell of marijuana coming from the car the trial court ruled the best can be a pretty tough argument for the state and the reason it's going to be pretty tough is because because it needs  something a little more than fainter and fainter order needs to be something that the officers very confident and the record certainly supports the trial court's ruling and i believe that this is a factual ruling would be is that ruling against the manifest weight of the evidence it was burke and the video also reflects that over and over and over again this officer says i'm not one hundred percent sure i don't really know if i smell that i'm not sure if i smile it's very very different than a faint odor of him is that you know smile and in fact there's no court case of that that i was ever able to find that says that an uncertain smell of marijuana is sufficient reasonable suspicion although he's the type of think marijuana are situations where the officer in real i smell marijuana that's however on the video you can actually hear him say oh when i first went up there i couldn't smell it it wasn't until i went up there again and he rolled down his windows that i could actually smell the smell so we have a real be inconsistency about what was in smell and when it suppress statements should have been granted the trial court in this case apply the mendenhall factors to try to determine if the defendant was in custody in that that's just not the appropriate standards it's it's actually the slater court and specifically actually it's the mccarthy brief and usually there are many officers their officers there and it's in a public place and when they feel but however because of the awesome knowledge that at some point these traffic stops can become something different than a regular traffic  hear having conversation with a third officer about what they have seen so far so it's likely it's a reasonable inference based on the facts that at that point when when mr wood he was removed from his car there were three officers there in apparently three different squad cars all end up  result the trial court should have suppressed the statements and that we're asking that if you if you will in our favor in that issue it should be remanded back to the trial court for a decision on whether or not all of those statements lead to something that was the fr to the first issue in my opinion there's a video as well but i think i think the issue can be decided based on two two facts alone people submit that there there was reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or tries the first time he went up he said he he smelled marijuana as counsel said he was not one hundred percent sure he said it was faints he said that the way the wind was blowing whatever that's ok because what are we talking about here your honour's we're talking about reasonable suspicion we're not talking about proof we're not talking about proof needed a trial beyond a reasonable doubt we're hack we're audience talking about probable cause we're talking about reasonable suspicion that i was recruited right when this guy opens up the when trooper patterson goes up to the vehicle he smiles a what he says quote definitely and all was a masking agent that's what he testified as we says you can hear that in the video he's talking about it with with more shies when he comes back to the car are never testified that he is no masking agent he's not marijuana five minutes later well there's no marijuana any more white that i know why officers know why because this is the funded math with whatever  masturbate doesn't matter what it was patterson said it was definitely a masking agent well if you because you combine those two facts marijuana five minutes later masking agent rotter that's reasonable suspicion that a crime has happened in seconds after patterson got back to the vehicle approximately these are all talk sometimes they call for the dog i don't i don't know what else the trooper was supposed to do with that when he called for the dog that's right when he put this together these two facts together  and he was reasonable for doing so he was reasonable for prolonging this stock for that reason that the trial judge was counsel noted again at the trial to believe that is this masking agent wasn't an important factor in the people strongly disagree with that the fact that the circumstances in this gentleman's vehicle has certainly changed here in the last approximately five minutes between troopers the fact that he's in all you you pretty sure he's not drugs one minute and then the next minute another officer in his reply brief or it made me realize as his main brief that the reason was that that during the twenty minutes twenty five minutes officer was in the car with the terrorist watch list issue that and these officers went back and forth  vehicle that the reasonable suspicion of this order dissipates every time they go back the people disagree with that strongly because he smiled the first time and then the math major was small the second time the fact is nothing else has changed in this car whatever  on the list he said that this past you call this number and he said it took if that takes time he said he's done this before he's had a terrorist watch list if she wants before he said it takes time so he waited for this whole thing to get flushed out he finally found the i believe a thirty two minute mark that this was a code three which is the lowest level and then that's it that was it with of the watch list he did his investigation he took a reasonable time to do it he was at the mercy of these folks because he didn't do it before because he was busy it was figure out with this terrorist watch list that she was about and he was totally reasonable in doing so and he would have been grossly negligent if he didn't do so there was this couple  a code three in the lowest alert and approximately a thirty one minute and sixteen or ninety second mars less than forty seconds later he says you can hear it on the video that he's going to go talk to the defendant about the drugs that were smiled and the masking agent so that's certainly not reasonable and then he goes out and then he gets the defendant out of the car at a park approximately a thirty to fifty two minute mark and then they have discussion outside the car and at that point the defendant and it's that he was smoking marijuana and they had up of pipe and his and his car this was within two minutes of learning about the what about the terrorist watch list and the people said that there was nothing up until this point that was on an that you know they had all that but that nothing happens they don't come out anymore you know it's fair to question him about drugs or anything until after the thirty one which it seems to me that they didn't need to wait for that they actually job is in this particular situation this is a man who just pulled over a eight a gentleman in a normal traffic stop and smell of marijuana he goes back and he finds out that this gentleman is on the terrorist watch list it is twenty to twenty minutes too long to figure out if this gentleman is in danger he clearly needs to go back up and talk to this this person because of the drug the reasonable suspicion of drugs so he's going to go up no matter what he waits twenty minutes or he goes right up and ignores the terrorist watchlist which again  almost certainly has committed a crime again reasonable suspicion of drugs he's going to have to go back up to this car at some point i think it's totally reasonable that before he goes up to this car to figure out why this gentleman is on the terrorist watch list whether or not that comports with with  k the instructions or not but and again your honor the trooper testified that he he was under the impression that he was supposed to call this eight hundred number or once once it turned out that this gentleman was definitively on this list to call the one eight hundred number that's what he testified and that's what he did whether or not that was what ever protocol that was that he was supposed to do that is not what he testified at the first hearing what he was supposed to do each sucks the fight he did what he was forced to do and that's call the one eight hundred number and he did that clearly the video just shows i'm going to have i don't but the paper told him to do something in addition to that and he had north that well and you keep talking about he smelled marijuana it seemed pretty clear what the police officer knew or thought he knew with the instructions that were on the on the watch list information that he had and in terms of his side of the balance it seems like it was really your i would say it's really began this is a human being out in the field with this guy who could be a terrorist he's a human being who said he wasn't sure that he smelled marijuana and he said i'm not relying on this for probable i don't believe i don't know recovery from wrong i don't think the trial judge debated whether or not there was a masking agent he just said it wasn't significant i don't think he disputed whether or not it was or was not i'm asking if you correct me if i'm wrong i don't i don't think i am i just i guess no i don't i don't think anyone's face i don't think anyone's of that i think everyone's waiting whether how strong this knowledge this or there's no question that more size of thought is not something and that he was pretty sure it was marijuana i think that's in the record and that's kind of not in dispute determining when it is appropriate to rely on this if this will work when it's appropriate to rely on a fire and they said when the underlying agency has reasonable suspicion when you can take an objective look at the flyer bulletin and know that the police officer didn't go behind in front of those circumstances it it doesn't really all that much matter if the officer thought he was with the right thing if he was doing the wrong thing because over talking about is a situation in which the questioning is the true alert had been brought in there certainly very strong argument that the alert said the opposite of what the offer of what the officer officer did even that's tough to establish because the actual terrorist watch list alert was never brought in and that's why  case and why the trial court ruling that if this was an army major situation would have gone on too long but because of what the government's put out there and because the because of you know what this says about society  is this a manifest weight of the evidence question is this is is this a situation in which the factual findings are you have to be the opposite were unreasonable or arbitrary in order to be overturned pursuant to the manifest weight of the evidence i refer to it there's people versus instance the fourth district case and in that case it makes the fourth district at least made very clear that they are by a manifest weight of the evidence and are to whether someone smells marijuana or that and that refers to a  district case paul makes very clear factual findings and those conclusions are inferences derived from those factual findings ever manifestly to the evidence that what we're dealing with here very very clearly is at least inferences that are derived from the from the testimony from the finding fact and how that's you know not even stronger is there were inconsistency is in each one of these officers has very many of them a lot  add much weight to that he did because those were factual findings he was deriving from the record this idea that a mask even if anything that covers a small that i guess if that's the definition that anything that smells certainly did not know he didn't have just a faint order in uncertain and that's a very very big difference he was not sure if he had smelled what he smelled and he states it over and over and over so he's not sure how