court in this report recommendation there's a traffic stop component to the whole incident and there's also a criminal investigation component but the magistrate court found and we believe this accurate assessment of the law that once the highway patrol guy found everything in order to hold mr us sanchez that he was not going to cite him and said ok we're done here that ended the traffic stop encounter now in the traffic stop encounter we don't have much of a problem with what highway patrol did everything appears to be to comport with the fourth amendment with one exception you know some page on the first vine of the x or front page ninety two rosella owens than about a highway patrol officer could tell that it wasn't a weapon but then he goes ahead and ask them what it is and i would submit at that point that particular question exceeded the scope of the traffic stop this is a traffic stop about a cracked windshield and the g p s or video monitor that there was no officer safety implicated now of the observation reach down and grab the cash and manipulated it or touched it in any way clear that would have been a constitutional violation under supreme court precedent like but what happened here was that instead of reaching down he asked the individual what is it now we would submit the asked question was implementable and that question exceeded the scope of the stuff and within the traffic stop component of this incident nevada highway patrol and i will give them their kudos has come out with a scheme or plan to engage in these interdiction manners in a way that they believe comports with the fourth amendment after trial and error and we've had a lot of experience with some data highway patrol stuff and in federal court and state court about it after a lot of trials and tribulations and separate grand suppression motions they've come up with this plan if you will how they're going to conduct these stops and what they do is the do the traffic stop what the data highway patrol wants to the court to believe and what u s attorney wants the court to believe is that a reasonable person under you know the objective standard test that we all agree applies here that a reasonable person would feel free to leave that point and hear what happened they said we're done here everybody turns away from each other because walking their prospective vehicles the opposite our client and his passenger mr sutton and then the officer says oh can i ask you some more questions had cash and whether or not that's permissible grounds for the court to look at in a reasonable suspicion analysis depends on what the question was assuming that it was they had the cash they had inconsistent travel stories they had the evidence of a citation on the way to arizona the day before and the driver was saying he'd been there for week and the driver couldn't remember the name of the squad so essentially they had some discrepancies about the travel stories they had the that will keep barring that they had reasonable suspicion to detain him regardless of his consent so i have to be heard i was directing your attention to the right and in the second part we would submit that it's a very close case the government can certainly muster up and they did muster up a fair amount of evidence at the evidentiary hearing tending to demonstrate some suspicion we would argue and there's no search and seizure cases are interesting because there never seems to be any cases directly on point as i can like snowflakes and everyone is different a government would point out everything this is correct there's nothing wrong with having a dog sniff around the exterior that's not a search and that's where the dog alerted to the trail right but what is permissible perhaps is making mr sanchez hang around long rifle is sort of becomes a question of whether enough for an arrest so what really what we have here and i'm going to try to reserve the rest of my time for a while i may as i totality of the circumstances analysis on the reasonable suspicion which is a more traditional fourth amendment analysis the more interesting question detain for a traffic infraction is very limited and so a once they've completed their investigation they need to either have reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention or release the defendant and make sure that the defendant that you don't have to use the words your free to leave although clearly that would be one way to communicate and this officer let me take you back to the traffic stop because there's three questions that particularly bother me once you made the pat down that's what gentleman there may have been firearms in his pocket or some some other item that would injure the sure but then he says what's in there after he feels it and is satisfied that there's not a firearm in there what business is it of the officers in connection with a traffic stop watch in his pocket without a warning right that part of the traffic stop light that i knew nice this investigation it was the officer saw something suspicious he saw an extremely large holes in someone's pocket that's right any put his hands on it it was not a firearm so what was he worried about it is is there anything in the record that expresses his worry about the traffic stop that has something to do with what's in a pocket so he asked the question what's in the pocket what's what is that a legitimate question in connection with the traffic stop yesterday on in fact  that was the cause for reason that was the reason for the graphics that is given so what's the question got to do with the office if at this point the officer seeing very suspicious back and more and more as it goes along  seen the money you saw the money there comes back yes and the answer to that is when an officer sees something suspicious like a very large holes in the pocket which could be anything it might not be a weapon it might be drugs obviously it could be something totally innocuous it's not unreasonable for an officer to ask what that is the question officers got another question in connection with the traffic stop what's your past employment what difference does it make what he did one year five years or ten years ago or who he was previously employed by in connection with a traffic stop on account the officer resolve the traffic stop without knowing what kind of work this guy did before the the record i submitted actually is not directly clear on whether the officer asked the question of the defend a volunteer did in fact in the record i believe that was a question asked of the passenger by detective sergeant vincent about after the the  vinson found the arizona citation and got identification from the passenger he asked the passenger what this court has held in other cases the questions about employments if not directly has indirectly he traffic violation is just showing a t v screen in the available to the driver and a crack in the windshield right that's it so that they can ask them how to crack your windshield or who turned on the t v and you know everything you want to car they clearly might ask them where they're coming from and where they're going these are not questions that would make someone feel that they're being accused of a crime they're conversational questions there was nothing coercive about the way they were asking these questions the record i that right to not answer the questions and there's no argument here that he was forced to answer or coerced to answer or that he was being even pushed to answer these were very conversational questions that the defendant responded to again he was asked permission to him down and he consented that he was asked permission to remain and answer some other questions and he agreed to do that in fact he walked back to the officer the whole tone of the stop was a non pushy non accusatory and these questions were very normal questions or routine questions that someone might encounter on any traffic stop it now clearly if you was asking about drugs or accusing him of some criminal activity that might raise concerns to the court what was completed the traffic stop search the car but he didn't when the officers asked to be off sad do you have any vagas yes i have some bags can i search your car you can look in my bag he told twice you can look in my bag never answer the question can you search the car just along the lines of the larger theme of where the questions asked in the traffic stop speech permissible and one thing i research missed the point out is that why are they questioning the passenger at all why are there people in the suzanne and the elders thing here with their poll number with a part in trying to get inconsistent stories in the eye but we all can pretty much conjecture that has nothing to do with the cracked windshield or there's nothing that mr sutton can tell them that's going to help them determine whether or not that cracked windshield is obscuring the field of vision of the windshield and the this court's precedent seems to indicate that there are questions ancillary questions related to that inquiry that are permissible and when i say that i mean try to raise questions are ok because those who'd be somehow related to whether that and we enter into impermissible territory here i would submit that the questioning of the passenger on the questions about the money and the questions about your family relations all exceeded the scope and as my last point if those questions are impermissible the information learn from those questions has to be extracted from the reasonable suspicion analysis and i submit that once you do that you would find that there wasn't reasonable suspicion to detain my client any longer thank you all right thank you both for the argument where are you