we had three cases this morning and the first is number seventeen dash twenty seven thirty nine a united states record mr grows and  was a suspicion rather reasonable suspicion to continue to stop if the officer is no longer fulfilling the mission of the stop and robbery was tells us what the mission of the stop is it's not just an say there's always other matters so i understand robberies you can ask about the things that have to do with the stop that is the reasonable suspicion or the probable cause that prompted the stop in this case said hearing and when i say hearing i should be more specific there was no hearing in which there was a rise of testimony here right that's correct they say the court listens to or looks at the video and then it's point he's talking about whether he's cut the three to drive the car to registration question right registration authority drive the car he tells him again the officer knows you've got a license with a certain address this is registered to somebody who is at that address he says it's my mother the religious tradition shows a woman with the same name he gets her on the phone and he's on the west and starts asking about his arrests there were these really thinking is i wonder if he's got permission to drive this car was it more reasonable to fake this day knows now he's got a question of well the officer might be thinking the supreme court said this not asking now i'm asking is it more objective than the reasonable looking in that series of events to think is judge wilson did this was about finding out whether this was a car he had permission to try this was about finding out about drugs you're on it is not why do officer broadly be if he believed that she didn't say that he had the adored her son had the authority to drive a car that was registered in her name that he should have asked her when he was on the three way phone call you're up your he didn't even know if it was robert's mother  trafficking it might be also an objective look reasonable officer could say well perhaps the mother of an adult are living with her might authorize your son to drive a car but it's so authorize a son with a with a prior conviction for drug trafficking talk or if that does something reasonable not to talk to the person on the phone who purports to be the mother that doesn't that undermine severely your assertion that this was all a late night traffic stop that question was sandwiched between thirty minutes of appropriate police investigation and when that i read that i wonder is the government just really bothered by the ruling rodrigue if that's true and if this really was off mission questioning assume that for the sake of this part of the discussion but it doesn't matter when it does it whether it was twenty seconds within thirty minutes driver's side which he clearly said two or three times he had not if the officer was really fearful about his own safety which clearly was not because the video shows his partner was doing exactly his job as to what he should be doing by guarding the right side of a car awards and he's got the license he's got the insurance and the mother confirms or the person approach to be the mother that the son she has a registration is her baby and implies that he's brother says mom and she responded she responds right and she says he's done before he has my permission to operate from the fan and he she is responding to his questions to mom about why she didn't change the registration there's a conversation going on a conversation in which officer bradley chooses not to ask one single question about authority to drive the vehicle right and that is because officer roberts at not officer so my question to you is if it's true that he answers the questions to officer bradley satisfaction roberts and he knows at that point that officer could say i'm not really wanted to tell to rely on the voice of somebody who the defendant called i don't know what it is the more i know whether it's the registered owner i'm going to go in another direction and that subjectively reasonable so they have to the question basically is if i inquire about where you're going where you're coming from and your criminal record and then i go and talk to whoever else is in the car and i get a different answer about where you're coming from and where you're going that's going to tell me whether or not you're the you've got permission to drive this vehicle that's where you are because when it is that's the best way to find that out well this judge wilson found that there was appropriate additional investigation our job which is on the totality of the circumstances and ask whether it is objective we reasonable to believe that what was going on here was a investigating whether there was a forty to drive  back and forth because if he had reasonable questions about the authority to drive that vehicle then he should be very well have a question with a person who purported to be the mother at right and he did ask a simple question of her he was he was looking for something else is the way to appear to judge wilson and he never she just came in saying you know i clean this thing the government's got a good point here and she changed her money because i know there's no doubt that the last point that you're posing council needs there is that the officer explained it because of the driver scryer drug arrests he wanted to know where the driver was coming from that's the that's what they attribute to officer bradley is that an accurate statement that officer bradley said to mr roberts he wanted to know about robert's is right correct rest because he bradley wanted to know where eighteen minutes after twelve fourteen seconds and this is when officer bradley and the driver are at the rear of the vehicle and he's again explaining what he's trying to do an says i asked him about where before he said i asked you about a criminal history to see if you could lie to me but what he says is and this is the best i can do with quoting from the video rodent being arrested i'm coming from physically or is this just more of us or bradley saying i was trying to figure out if you're lying i believe it's actually a literal question he says it two times he says i want to know we were  says in effect well if it's proper to run a database jack there's nothing more intrusive about simply asking directly  about somebody scramble background so what's this what's the floor in the government's reasoning that everybody agrees we could have run a criminal background checks all beers really and problematic about asking a criminal background check question to the defendant himself or to the driver and so i think the answer is in the first instance that it's sixteen fifty for the mission of the traffic stop should have been over also probably should have come to the two tickets instead he asked those questions those questions and there isn't a third sort of case police right it's says it's ok to ask criminal record question if there is a temporal limit what you're saying is then time doesn't matter and if time does matter then what difference does it make if if the officer here officer bradley takes another twenty seconds to ask a question instead of running a second background check i mean under what you're saying he could have one two or three back right he could've taken another twenty seconds to run the background check right yes so so she's your argument that as a matter of law if you run one background check on a computer that's it you can't do anything else not necessarily it depends when i talk about the limit i don't look into  even when you see the mission is over or to put the rabbit in a hat that is the question we're trying to get at is the mission over is it improper you can't answer the question is the mission over by simply asserting the mission is over the government's position is the mission isn't over and i'm trying to draw down on why is conan wrong is coming wrong when it says if you can make if you can run a background check you can ask the you can only se questions during the mission so you have to define what the mission is to determine when its end point we are its end point is here the question is to address the traffic stops and to determine the reason for the traffic stop and determine that he has a valid driver's license the course register it's inspected and it's insured so what is it about this case that makes you say having run the background check and asking the question is definitely off limits how do we how do we think about that as a legal matter how do we even the right of cones say it would be ok to run one background check it would be ok to run two or three background checks because there are other cases that say multiple background checks are fine but it's not ok to run one background check and asked the question i think it goes to the root of this is a background check with a question it's a safety precaution and secret cautions are only valid during the mission they're not part of the mission they are acknowledged as off mission questions that can ensure the officer safety but you can't make extend the stop is inversely related to officer safety the seething would be if the actual traffic mission is complete and by that i mean we've addressed the violations and here they're obstructed view is something from the rearview mirror hanging he was on a cell phone and he was the lead attorney on its rights of course register it's insured it's inspected he doesn't have any warrants and he has a valid driver's license the question about safety is the officer safety when he's determining all will those aspects of the you assuming you are correct there's another step here which is that the results of that additional questioning are the but for cause of the discovery of the evidence that led to the prosecution of this or clarke right yes how how is it that those questions those that if we assume there's a constitutional violation work to look at this and that and i ask whether there's other other discovery that could have or is that just too much of the gas that rocking back we say with with some certainty that as officer bradley walks roberts back to the car roberts gets back and he's not going to smell the wafting of marijuana coming out of a car he says that at multiple times on the tape he smell it that way but i assume that had happened i'm dealing with the but for cause here kind of an inevitable discovery point i guess he's we can assume he keeps talking or  whatever was going on inside the car is it watchable to assume that opening the car broke robert's getting back in i mean it's it's not a bus we're talking about here it's a it's a vehicle with two people in the front seat is  assume that had he gone through the driver side said the passenger side at that point and spent any amount of time you would have snow the same marijuana yeah and i say that because he should confused by the questions officer said look what i'm trying to do is i'm trying to figure out where you're coming from i pulled up your history to see if you're lying to me they later on said the same thing this goes on for a couple more minutes robert because exasperated the officer at twenty eight asked him to step out of the car comes to the back and he says they took a walk back bradley explained i'm asking you questions most of them i already know the answer or you got to do this kind of inaudible it's not play games or anything like that i told you why i stopped asking a person about his criminal history if he tells you correctly to the date he got out of prison so there is no wrong choice no further question with regard to the authority to drive have somebody get permission to drive a car here we've got somebody who purports to be owner on the phone no questions are asked instead we have the exchange that took him quoted including ending with that people with the registration whether there's authority to drive the car and the other i could talk to the person who purports to be the one who's the registered owner of the car but i choose not to instead of i ask about criminal history after i an intel telling the truth about them and life was made easier because the person you're proposing to be the mother was on the phone and the officer had a chance to ask any questions he wanted and he could go on for two or three minutes the question with regard to the registration authority to use the car and did not instead always said rose i checked for everything including worse that's it boom it's over every traffic stop to take the driver out of the car whether it takes him out of the car immediately or whether he takes them out subsequently because he thinks that the driver's getting agitated that's a matter for the never violation removed and robards is given be it the officer tell you it's over as to you right then the about face and then the focus on clark have to decide at that point i'm done here i'm confident before i let this individual drive office car this individual who has been convicted of drug trafficking this driving this car after midnight and mike sufficiently confident that he's got