analysis in the analysis should have been this objectively speaking from the point in time that a fourth amendment seizure actually took place looking at the totality of circumstances arguable reasonable suspicion for the stop now it does not matter what officer bought may have subjectively thought it doesn't matter what terry anderson subjectively thought after speaking to an officer but it doesn't matter what level of suspicion officer bob may have had at that point in time that he made the initial decision to get behind the utah u haul truck as a matter that he had gotten behind the vehicle was for no other reason that it was a u haul truck and that was certainly ok and the officer later observed a speeding violation and so the stop was validated  it doesn't make any difference what level of suspicion officer bought had at various points prior to the time that a fourth amendment seizure actually took place  cite there are plenty of others one of them is united states versus probable to ninety five hundred thirty one thousand and two but certainly the fact that the vehicle failed to yield is recognized by a number of decisions to be a very important factor in raising the officers safety concerns as to what this you all is doing now here there are a number of other factors as well one is that you know here the officer gets behind the you haul puts on his lights pulls in his own lane to the left of his own lane to be sure that the driver of the u haul can see him if you haul does not  is and raising the officer safety concerns van in combination with some of the other observations that the officer had made this takes on more significance now what this vehicle does is to travel on both a highway and a north and west direction and then make a turn from boulder highway on to russell road and go completely east bound now and doing vast the u haul past the of broadband and boulder highway and had the u haul and this is one of the straights that again that the you hold have passed with the officer behind him you haul didn't exit on broad got but instead went in a completely north and west direction to reach russell road and then proceeded back toward russell road and broadband and this is an intersection that you haul could have reached far more quickly and far more directly by simply car what happens is then this truck first of all does a number of observations prior to the stop actually taking place that again elevate the officer safety concerns and i'm going to reach the point about the passengers but i just think it's important to point out that this you haul goes eastbound on russell road and then stops unexpectedly in the middle of the street where there's no stop sign on the officer actually has to hit his brakes in order to and proved to be outnumbered so he's alone it's getting dark he's in a place where it's unsafe he sees a u haul traveling on a direction which presumably ought to be carrying household furnishings in an area that is completely on appropriate  you hall because it is going straight toward sam boyd stadium and that ending at standpoint stadium at a place where there is no activity taking place there so now that you haul stops where it's not supposed to stop forcing the officer to stop broccoli makes a left sharp turn pulled over again immediately on the right side of the road kicking up dust behind him the officer still doesn't know whether at any time  truck is full of people he doesn't know what actually is taking place and why the u haul would react in in this consistently strange way and i'm not sure you answered the question though all of those observations may support some action with respect to the driver but the question is what about the passengers well he doesn't know whether or not there are passengers he knows that that he knows that this is a u haul truck that he show force with a gun right that's one of the allegations so after the vehicle has been secured what is the justification for the felony stopping the passengers particularly in light of the officer statement that some of the passengers he thought might have been kidnapped so he's treating the kidnap victim supposedly the same as you would the driver of the car so tell me what is the independent and what we want you to address is  your view of the independent justification if there is any for the felony stop of the passengers ok if there is no independent justification that's fine and it will rise or fall on your the ok let me talk maybe about some of the cases that i did cited which on far less justified felony stops we have a vehicle in one of the cases i cited where the officer suspected nothing more than parking tickets but the fact that the vehicle failed to immediately yield was sufficient to raise the officers the suspicions as to exactly what was going independent is there any independent justification for stopping the passengers when when the officer is dealing with a completely unknown in a remote orly that area has no idea how many people are in the vehicle and by the way this was not an unlikely stop given the dispatch records showing exactly how long this took place this was done with quick dispatch they simply pulled the vehicles pull the occupants out so that they could determine who was in the vehicle once that was done they immediately ran the names and i think that the amount of minutes here was it was like from  about a truck full of people to the passengers do anything that justified to stop independent of the driver or the vehicle or did they do anything independently at the car at this thing that justified hauling the gun and but that question in my mind assumes that he mew if there were passengers or how many of you know i think i think we're not getting anywhere and i'm sorry we're not communicating but i think i gather from the answer there is nothing counsel and please the court my name is robert langford i'm the attorney for the plaintiff the pallies in this case i practiced primarily criminal defense so i'm happy to be here in a fact situation where there wasn't a few pounds of marijuana in the back of the you hole my point is that so often when we engage in a discussion of fourth amendment violations we end up having a fact pattern where at the end of the story illegal immigrants are pulled out of the back of the whole trailer or there are kilos of cocaine or some other agreed this criminal activity has actually ended up taking place that is not the case here this is a family that is citing rodriguez the sport's we are not going to let reason we must not accept what has come to appear to be prefabricated or recycled profile of suspicious behavior very likely to sweep many ordinary citizens into a generality of suspicious of parents merely on a hunch what's the gist of the fourth amendment violation that the plaintiffs claimed here that the stop was not justified you is that it yes that there was no justification for the stop based upon the words of officer bought to my client where he said you were driving a u haul with arizona plates and a known drug area further you had a female and child in the front seat and you look suspicious let's assume for the sake of argument that there was an illegal and change and they arguably there is no dispute only because it's difficult for us to dispute that we didn't see it what we stipulated to it we well i mean what are we going to say that in mechanically there was a problem i think the stipulations mechanically there was no problem we didn't see it make the argument that that the stop itself was not enough and again you end up with the aspect of the lane change and all of that that comes out articulated that's the articulated suspicion long after this case has been filed and that was not what the officer said at the scene and again as a trial lawyer when i have someone take the stand and they tell me a different story than something they originally told the police years earlier i mean the standard thing they say is well you said this at the time of the incident didn't ship would you agree with me that you were probably relaying more accurately what took place and then you are now well let's assume for that this goes to trial and the jury makes a finding that there was an illegal lane change then that's a different circumstance is n if we assume at this point you may have different different outcomes but you can't assume is that the gist of your position on that absolutely position is if that's a disputed fact it's a material fact and it's something that i think  jury needs to decide i think the difficulty here is that there is testimony that there wasn't a legal went mind change your rebuttal of that is the explanation of the  any reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop you know when you turn on the lights just willy nilly and somebody doesn't pull over then you strap and the ability to make that stop because you turn your lights on and they  and the other thing i would say with regards to the lane show you what you're saying is you can't turn on his lights must he has reasonable suspicion or some other reason to engage the emergency lights and i know there are all sorts of procedure as to when it is appropriate to turn on the emergency lights and siren but my point is that in except in the illegal lane change again that goes back to officer box testimony on a motion for summary judgment that's correct and one other thing i would like to point out is that quite honestly if you look at some of the cases cited by  at the facts the facts are always much greater factual basis for reasonable suspicion in fact in illinois versus wardlow cited by them are the facts were in fact articulated by the united states supreme court that it was had long flight that the people were engaged in and safiya versus caps it was i'm saying billington rather there were tires squealing somebody was merely merely almost didn't avoid a head on collision was going to stab and be in a thirty that is not the situation that is not the fact pattern here finally the defendant of pellant relies heavily and want to really hang his hat on this qualified immunity issue and i would sum up by saying that in saucy vs caps it was quoted that qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law now in this case either officer bot was plainly incompetent or stopping a car a u ha of what happened ye that there's no justification for i found any type stop and high risk i would not i would not i mean i understand the legality of the lane change and you know sort of the automatic bootstrapping of could he have written a ticket if he  couldn't were there but the problem with that is we have sort of a creeping situation here where we end up exactly with this case because of that he says this lane changed a couple of times without signalling and therefore he's  justified in doing a full blown felony car stop at seven thirty at night in the middle of the summer with people with babies and this woman had a baby in her arms when they pulled her out of the car and that's the problem with all of this it becomes a creeping situation where we tell police officers well that's ok as long as somewhere down the road you can articulate some kind of reasonable suspicion and i think that we do our country a disservice if we end up in a situation like that because again it's this court pointed out and by steroids we can't allow ordinary citizens to be caught up in that we i got a hunch and i'm going to pull you over and later on if i need to  time on opening but i'll give you manage if you'd like to take it for a bottle  you know a great deal was made before the district court which i think was an error to talk about what level of suspicion officer bob had  at various points prior to the time going forth and seizure took place and the district court on the record and it's in my brief exactly what the district court judge he said you had to have a reason to follow after this you specifically said in a case where the officer testified the only reason i even got behind this you haul truck to follow is because it was a u haul truck i wanted to observe it and then when they you  later made a traffic violation the court was completely fine with that and there was never an issue as to what level of suspicion an officer has to have in order to make the initial determination to get behind a vehicle and to observe it so that's what i perceived as the district courts and national mistaken premises that we were having to justify why it is that the vehicle that you haul decided to to follow the vehicle in the first place and a reason we're needed i mean here we have a situation where you have a u haul truck going fifty five miles an hour there are about northbound on boulder highway  the furthest lane from the officer who stationary in the medium and you i have that driver testifying in his own words that he turned all the way to his left to look at the officer the passenger in the vehicle tina lemon officer can have this initial suspicion or at least as initial attention raised it is a legitimate factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus that certainly if a reason were needed that all by itself would be a reason for him to go ahead and get danger cues and the officer had a number of danger accused raised here you have the vehicle going to this area completely does to look for the you haul is completely inappropriate to the area which is another factor that th illustrate this so you have the you hole going completely to the north and to the northwest and to turn around and reach a point that was much easier much more directly reached by leaving the