telt is asking this court to review and reverse the decision of the appellate court in this case and therefore in essence to reinstate the trial court order of suppression which suppressed evidence taken based on advance they out occurred following a valid traffic stop and the adams county this case creates a unique opportunity for this cry she considered a matter of first impression and that first impression  is because the crew of the creativity of the adams county police they developed a new procedure which they wondered misfired t of the use of this procedure in the united states and this is the procedure it's very short the police officer called for the police dogs but did not use a police dog in the method set out by illinois versus instead the police approached the car and were going to ask for identification and here is what they sometimes state they tell someone who looks at them blankly will turn it to clicks to the right and this will cause the blowers in the car to see and hear out into the street at that point and only at that point did they have the dogs the dog max walk around the car and the dog alerted and based on the out  course federal case like teachers that the police have an absolute right to ask a defendant or a stop motorists to leave the car back first that isn't what happened in this case and secondly we don't know what would have happened if a misfire telt did that if she stepped out we don't she would i assume had a right to close your door lock the door or step away from the car or you know i don't think this is an end and inevitable discovery case under any stretch of the imagination not in this record anyhow else where we we have not yet determined whether the window was open or closed that's correct she did it it doesn't say in that's what we know from the record so it doesn't say the police officer did not testify and so we can't really surmise that they would come up to a car and say and always say close your windows were open you know or if you window is open make sure we don't know that we know that these are the four orders that are given in adams county and yes and said that we don't from this record we can't assume any kind of inevitable discovery from that fact right or as far as whether to pick up any type of order or exactly who has an expectation of privacy in the interior of the car when just not me out if i made just go around this little bit one doesn't have an expectation of privacy outside the car what i believe happened in this case night i'd like to use a phrase that i think characterizes what the trial court found and what the dissent would have found on appeal but there actually was a construct entry by the police in this car so i think that to suggest that only we must look at the error in the car is an improper way of looking at this what happened in this case and i know there are cases that say in the air outside of the car you have no legitimate interest in privacy in the outside of the car but here we are with in the car they are out there there  that the officer is allowed to tell the person to get the car i've usually you have to open the door of the car i mean can the court take your additional notice that any smell in their car since they can open the door you know judicial notice of any smell can come out and the very prospect that it may become out if we can take traditional notice of that that there's not an expectation of privacy as to the order in the   now i don't think that's the case and it doesn't surprise but of course but it's in the in this instance it's really a police action it's a probing it's a an exploration of the interior of the car very specifically if you look at us feed bond in the in the luggage prep cases and even if you have a limited expectation of privacy once there is a real intrusion even from the outside it's considered an invasion of privacy and so i think that you know it does make a difference that it is police action which cause this probing can't see the car would it offend the fourth amendment form to save you so you see the person turn on the dome light the car so i can see the inside i think he could ask i don't think that he can not have consent they do not have reasonable suspicion they do not have probable cause to enter this car and yet they use this device ordered the defendant to surrender her privacy and they looked through our date they cause this sense of of the smell the odor if that's what it was to go out of the car and it's really much right bring in the dog cases which are cited in all the briefs and i think in the opinion and the trial court order there is a there are a couple of cases united states we had seen in united states v wending ham where in one case the dog of its own volition jumps into a car or  alerts to something that's open and the police had a right to be there and that is really the essel so of plainview the police are at a place where they have a right to be when they see something in plain view they did not in this case have a right to be inside the car if they facilitated the plane sm cases the air is outside and kabbalah says i teach is that the use of a well trained dog on the exterior of the car know how's it different because in in that instance the police action in ordering someone out of the car may or may be leaking through scenes here we have the lower which enhances the smell there's no enhancement when someone opens a door but that but that begs the question as to whether there is an expectation privacy in the here and if under justice garments question the officer would be allowed as everybody agrees to say get out of the car and had a dog would be allowed to be standing right there on the outside of the car under the case law and if indeed you dish will notice or not there here comes out there would be no question that there wouldn't be an illegal search and seizure and you were green with  what your but what you're saying now is because they said turn on the blowers and it was perpetuated by the officer saying turn on the blowers if it came out that that's an illegal search  question is to whether or not there's an expectation of privacy in the air or in the car and it would seem to me if you can order somebody out in that era can go out there may not be an expectation of privacy which would you know defeat any argument is  blowing your other car wouldn't well i don't i don't think so i think we could look at an analogy to a year in a house could an officer see someone who had sort of bad teeth and bad haircut walk into your house and think i'm suspicious there might be math in there could the officer someone to open a window to blow a fan could the officer have a dog walk around these are these are different matters and so we can say that there's no it shouldn't expectation of privacy in the air or in the interior it's really in city and it's the interior of the car and its contents the person to get out of the car and wave their coat back and forth is there an expectation of privacy in that and getting some sort of order coat or purse opening the purse you know there may be some here and there it may not show what the color of the woman's lipstick but there is still an expectation of privacy because the officer had no right to be inside that to be in that car for the op but you know what word the officer has to stay outside with the dog and adams county chose not to do that on this case has it come down to that this was or was not us  because you're exactly in then through the use of the dog given that procedure it's not that the dog sniff itself is wrong but that the use of the facilitation process is is  because there's been no testimony what the factual basis is for this procedure we don't know if it works or now we don't know whether the dog could have alerted with or without it we don't know what the dog what if the dog was alerting to blowers or to certain molecules coming through the vents but this really you know the we don't know how effective this tool really is that bad in this county is asking this court to enforce i see my smells anything alerted right so why did they just do that instead of having this false removal of the air from the inside of the car why do they do that i mean the can't go in the car so they are going to pull the air out is it right we don't know we don't know whether the dog would have alerted or not so there's really no would inevitably discovery argument in that respect because they didn't first take the dog around and then turn the blowers on to really we don't know on this record but if this is part of their training it's based on some purpose the record does not reveal that the only purpose the record reveals is that horses get out the seams and that's where they train the dogs to sniff perhaps so what happened here i'm sorry seems to me the issue in this case is where we draw a line and sinker we know that luggage been taken is taken under the control of airport hasn't been a case such as this one where we we have ambient air moved from one from institute in the interior of the truck to the exterior at least an effort to do so isn't isn't the task of this court to find out what  point the set up procedure is something other than an eye i mean not obviously we could all stay here and say it would be a great set up procedure for search searching for drugs they have women empty their purses on the table to this court this this set up procedure ought to be authorized because we let people we let policeman tell pete passengers and drivers to get out of their automobile somewhere  him stumbling around a little bit why should this particular set up procedure be authorized by this court because it's not a search at all your honor for two independent reasons first for the as the reason justice thomas mention that there's no legitimate expectation of privacy in the air in the vehicle we know his drivers that air is constantly leaving our vehicle and being replaced we know that our cars are subject to traffic stops or violate for equipment violations and we know that when the officer make contact with us we're going to have to roll down our window to make contact with the officer to speak with him and to hand my license and registration we know that the officer can order the driver and the passenger out of the vehicle during expectation of privacy that this society is prepared to recognize as reasonable or that some french were just i'm asking this court to find that an expectation of privacy in the air in the vehicle is just unreliable under the circumstances an from inside the vehicle to the outside vehicle outside of the vehicle and the canine snippet that air all it can disclose is the presence or absence of contraband which the defendant has no right  was parked in a crosswalk for over an hour and he had additional knowledge from it and an informant that this particular person before she moved the car he knew that she suspected that she was a meth user and for that reason had kept defendants residence under surveillance so actually the defendant's residence was under surveillance for quite some time which i don't know if you know the record but clearly this officer subjective intent intent to making the stop as long as he witnesses a traffic violation that that seizure is lawful but the traffic violation he witnessed for an hour before he he waited until according to i don't know exactly what the record says that he even with the doors closed during a traffic stop in particular it's going out through that window when you make contact with the officer can go out the door when the officer orders the driver the passenger out of the vehicle this is far information that defendant was using methamphetamine he had information from a drug task force and he had information from a confidential source and record reveals also we don't know exactly when but during the course of the stuff defend also told officer tyler that she was going to her sister's house to burn her garbage which off to tyler testified is is common among people who cook map so the state the state has a legitimate and weighty interest in preventing this kind of drug crime particularly with methamphetamine which is that is a real concern in rural areas of this state and also weighing in favor of the state is the fact that the set of procedures really minimally intrusive but it it keeps the dog out of the vehicle and you may recall that justice ginsburg's dissent in cobol is talked about drug detection animals being here intimidating animals so that also has the added benefit the set of procedures of keeping the what right do the police have to ask a defendant about opening closing windows stepping out of the car i think that there's a we don't know when an officer orders someone out of the car we do not assume that the officer also swings open the door of the car locks the door of the car to keep the earth flowing out the officer who instructs the defendant out of the car does not manipulate the car in any way the officer acting out of safety concerns ask someone to step out of the car the officer is not violating the defendant's or the stop to motorists reasonable expectation of privacy manipulation there was probing of the inside of the car the fact that the policeman did not stick his foot into the car insufficient it's i yes i think that there's a distinction and first of all i don't think that an officer getting information from a defendant i think there's a distinction between  g roll down your window so you can hear me and roll down your window all the way for instance i mean you assume that a person has to submit to the seizure in some way but actually requiring action of a stock a motorist which sends out a lot of if we're to believe what the state says incriminating information that's a different story than just saying please hand me your identification that mean there are ways my question would be them in that it's a little bit redundant but based on that statement if a passenger opens the door she abandons her privacy concern my question is if there was an absolute right in a traffic for the officer to order ask or the motorist to open the door and leave the vehicle was there ever a legitimacy privacy concern in the air in their vehicle in the first i think there was and i think that it's wrapped up in what the procedure is motorist and if the motorist is required by the police to do something more probing than then opening a car door and closing a car door i think i think that privacy concerns are implicated and especially this set up procedure which i think is eight tremendous intrusion on individual rights and to be an expectation of privacy and that here in the air and everything else within the vehicle i don't think it's a simple matter of oh in this case that you know they're well i'm not quite so sure but i think it's the privacy of the individual in that space it's the entire space of the interior of a car just like we can't say that they hate a person has no privacy right in the interior in the air in their home because everything is interrelated it's not just where you have no right here in your home but you have a right to certain other things i mean here is part of your of your home here is part of your car it's it's the eight environment of the interior of the car it's not just little bits of it  know is legitimate was an intrusive behavior on the part of the adams county police respect child would ask that you reverse the decision of and apparently there was some methamphetamine within this pen and then there were some i mean it was really we don't have  wheat but there was also there were a couple of strips of