connection with which the trooper perform the sort of tasks you would normally expect out of a traffic stop losses check registration check insurance having done all that the trooper then proceeded to say when he shoot you a warning for that speeding violation but after making that decision the trooper continued to detain mr davis for an additional thirty five minutes trying his criminal history to question him about criminal history and call in a drug dog that ultimately led to the discovery of the drugs in the firearm that are the basis of the convictions that are now on appeal that prolonged attention violated mr davis fourth amendment rights and we presented two basic issues to the court to explain that first the new case of the robbery is first united states and this court's own decision about  versus united states or united states versus valid as show that the way that the fourth amendment should have applied to this traffic stop limited the officer from further detaining mr davis after the traffic violation had been resolved and second no additional or new reasonable suspicion justified the prolonged attention after the warning demonstrated that the traffic violation had been resolved and i'll start with the discussion of robbery since it is a case that actually came out since the briefing and it's probably not a trooper performs those reasonable checks runs his insurance runs his license checks his registration and then says i'm going to dispose of your swerving by way of a warning and and issue the warning he then prolongs that attention to call in a drug dog at which point evidence is found that leads to mr rodriguez says prosecution it goes up on appealed and the united states supreme court then discusses both the permissible scope of a traffic stop in terms of its duration and the acts that an officer can engage in during a traffic stop terms of duration what's reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the mission or the purpose of a traffic stop and the court makes clear that the mission or the purpose of a traffic stop is a resolving a traffic violation but i want to be clear in rodriguez the two are no new factors determine the term and after the stop that would justify prolonging it and so of the only justification is the traffic violation the rodriguez surprise here the government it's left to the district court to determine whether additional reasonable suspicion justified the prolonged attention and so our approach is one under offering us the traffic stop ended as the justification for the day we wait for the drug dog if that's all you have is  criminal history but that's that's where valdez this court's on preston valdez comes into play when you come when you combine the impact of rodriguez traffic stop as the justification ended when i've done enough to say i'm going to dispose of the traffic stop went up with a warning then it becomes up to that point was their decision reasonable suspicion this is courts precedent is clear supreme court precedent is clear we don't get to you in hindsight say hey you have a criminal history  all the the facts that are learned during the stop and during the questioning you don't just pick one and say oh no that's not reasonable you can't allow to  would be suspect of drug activity that's probably true you would want to see my pickup truck but let me before we before we move too far past your your question about the criminal history as part of the reasonable suspicion analysis out very very clearly in our briefing and in our rule twenty eight letter to the court is that the criminal history arose as a consideration only after the traffic stop in and so my point your honour's it be that in order to prolong that attention the reasonable suspicion to prolong it has to arise during the otherwise justified portion right you can't say i suspect you of criminal activity because you have a criminal record and i learned of that criminal record after my legitimate purpose for detaining you had been  he had to learn about the criminal activity or the criminal history during the otherwise justified a reasonable portion of the detention so as invalid as for example where an officer pulls over a fellow for having suspected of having a bad registration and  dark window tinting this court address that the questioning about running criminal history a question about criminal history and say when the officer approached the vehicle saw the registration was ok used this tool to check whether the tenting was too dark the traffic stop as justification the window tending the registration that was up that was over and it has to end unless there's a new reasonable suspicion they also did go on to question the individual about his current history run its course or see the see that he had one but all that occurred relied on which your individual pieces recognize know the case law the nervousness of your client the pit bull which based on the training the officer had received could be an indicator of  that the just to court look to each of those have some component in the case law you have to overcome that is being sufficient what you take a run at that ok i'll do that yes let's start with nervousness and the let me back let me start with the interstate forty five issue i know remind me this is used in the dallas is at forty five that's that's correct the the notion that given the number just so you can go back route you can go an interstate what judge that would be that's exactly the point that i'm trying to make with the interstate forty five issue your if you take that any of north interstates that are not dru that that's exactly my point you take back roads you're being suspicious you take the main road you're being suspicious you speed you've been suspicious you drive too slow you've been suspicious your car's dirty that's suspicious it's to clean that suspicious bag there are you have to rely on the office training and experience to know how to evaluate this cumulation of issues which is i think like tips elsewhere i was asking you to address once you get all the issues together why isn't that reasonable suspicion how do you that certainly an office training his experience what he's learned in the field is worthy of some deference but the statement that based on my training and experience travel on interstate forty five is indicative of drug activity is not some magical incantations court has to look at whether or not and how meaningful the factor is and so when you say ok interstate forty five that's one factor nervousness the other factor that admittedly is one that's been considered this court and other courts in this case though i think one nervousness in another self is an understand why aspect of any police interaction and it has to be given some weight in terms of indicating reasonable suspicion should it's also be taken with a grain of salt given that the amount of some work that police have particularly a lot of of them in advance ferguson baltimore cleveland back home in texas why and if i get faced with a police officer it's it's reason for me to be a little nervous and the remarkable part about mr davis nervousness came again during that challenge portion of the detention not before it in order to justify what the officer testified to this he was nervous when i was interacting with him but then when i told him he's only getting a warning for speeding he wasn't relieved well if an officer tells me mr rivera i'm going to give you a warning for speeding but you're not free to go i would probably not be relieved either i'm not get more nervous and so again that's not a factor that weighs significantly in favor of reasonable suspicion one of the things on nervousness the minor factual point is that i don't feel we did in texas is hot but this was a hot day in texas and your client was sweating a good bit even th officer's car was air condition is there any evidence of where the air conditioner was on in his car in the davis gun i believe that question those questions were asked and i don't think there was a definite answer one way or the other totality in terms of everything that arose during the interaction but when it arose when the traffic stop began under robbery guess the purpose its justification and thus its limitation in terms of duration and activity were to resolve the speeding violation and so in taking steps to resolve the speeding violation the officer is able to gather new facts or bissell five's to that rise to the level reason reasonable suspicion of some other activity fair enough but my point would be that those facts that arose during that justified detention were he was sweating on a hot texas day and he had his dog with him even the district court rejected the lived in factor even the district court rejected the fact that he was on a turnaround this that's fair enough reason to turn around trip the officers say they were inconsistent cesar's statements but never identify with those inconsistencies were resumed correct well the only the only statement i believe that the officer ever really that was ever really discussed in terms of mr davis credibility and here in the district court was ownership of the car i don't think anyone ever contested the fact that he was on a turnaround trip to see folks in dallas and was coming back home and the district court during the questioning here in the transcript of the hearing essentially dismissed that as a consideration in terms of the registration of the car as they've testified and he told the officer or the trooper it's my sister's car and there's never been anything to contradict that in fact  and i don't think there are any really really indications when you look at the record in this case again the officer says all based on my training experience that's not some cure all or magic incantation what's the training what's that experience have you done a study or statistics or do you have anecdotes of where that's happened before we have none of that in this case only the supposition that a pit bull which is a popular breed of dog somehow in the case drug activity and when you can have that alone or that with some nervousness on i forty five i don't think that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion that we should then be detaining folks for an additional thirty five minutes the calling of dogs and form drug searches all right thank you save some time for a lot of real since two thousand and one so that should have been in your initial brief rather than twenty yes your honor i i wanted to double check that i had caught everything and i think i missed that one originally because it had a red flag because it was reversed on other grounds but i did think it was pertinent for the court to at least know about it and i did cite in the brief at six circuit case pharma where the presence of a pit bull was part of a reasonable suspicion determination on to begin by just answering a couple of questions that were brought up during the original portion of the argument with regard to case law on drug court orders the pack case cited in our brief clearly a drug court or as one reason asked him about drug charges on his record and of course i could see that in front of me on my computer but he didn't mention anything about drug charges and a drug charge was a traffic stop before or after  occurred after the statement about i am going to give you a warning is a bit of a red herring because the reasonable suspicion had been developed by that point and i do think the pit bull is one of the keys there you did have the extreme nervousness the drug court or the lived in car the could the registration not in his name and it wasn't just a pit bull and this part is important to me as a dog lover it wasn't just that there was a pit bull asleep in the backseat this put bull barky lunging at the window and it was true the trooper testified that this was part of his training and experience and it's reasonable the touch tone of the fourth amendment is reasonable this it's reasonable that a drug courier might want to have an aggressive pit bull in the back seat especially if the drug courier is traveling long distance is going to have to stop for gas is going to certainly pass people who might be curious about what's in the vehicle having an aggressive pit bull in the car could determine not only deter not only law enforcement but other passers by so i think it's it's not like he had a siamese cat in the back of his backseat of the car he had an aggressive pit bull and on top of that trooper smith says that davis himself kept saying oh my dog's dangerous don't get close to the car he doesn't like people coming close to the car with you have a dog that was aggressive wouldn't you warn somebody to you know go to a lawsuit toward well certainly certainly i would but that along with the other totality of the circumstances would  testified that it was very clear davis didn't want him anywhere near that vehicle and i have a dog that barks that i tell everyone oh don't worry or don't hurt bark is worse than her bite down in just ten seconds but she's going to indicative of innocent comments should we know made about the dog if you have for some reason when i want to pit bull if you're not a drug dealer they may be aggressive and you want to warn people not to get too close to it  deeply strong evidence of criminal conduct but the case does say these are the sorts of factors i'm sure our issue is there is are enough here are these little pieces to create reasonable reading traffic stop cases the facts in each case are a little different if you're not going to have one that had all of these the same but against all of us you did have this was that i to my twenty controversy you had dollars was extremely nervous he he was going to florida but he was on i twenty when i ten would have been a better route and he had drug trafficking on his criminal history and here there was a criminal history cocaine trafficking on davi actually officer gives him the ticket and then asks about the criminal history so it's very similar to our case where he said i'm going to give you a warning and then he continues to question him but the court most suspicion was already there what's concerning about the fourth amendment the issue that what we're concerned with is detention not questioning and the court says that very clearly and break them and hear by the those questions were asked which in the answers were inconsistent and conflicting at the time those were asked reasonable suspicion had already been developed and i do think i'm troubled in some ways by the idea and maybe just how i'm reading davis brief but that somehow the that the detention ends when the officer says i've decided to give you warning getting speeding tickets and decision alone is troubling to me because certainly as i say in my brief what if you've been twenty miles over the speed limit the decision to give a ticket might have been made immediately the case  trooper smith wasn't diligent that he somehow drug list out the drug dog was caught called in about fifteen minutes he asked for consent at fourteen minutes he got on the phone and finished the call to get the drug dog sixty minutes so this was not like he was dragging his feet and trying to prolong it which i think is important because rodriguez does emphasize an officer has time to effectuate the stop but he should be diligent and do it matter i do think that is one of the lessons of rodriguez davis does realize pretty heavily and again here in oral argument as well as the brief on the case of valid that was the window tinting case difference between valid as in the instant case is that no one's challenging that davis was speedy the purpose of the stop the ten my going to eighty five in the seventy five mile zone no one's challenging that and valid as the stop the reason for the stop the reasonable suspicion for  stop the registration and the window to it that all went away the speeding never went away so off the trooper smith was under the fourth amendment allowed to effectuate the  the necessary checks and along that way he developed reasonable suspicion because of that the stop was prolonged for the drug dog to ride so i have under rodriguez and clearly in light of the  differences between our instant case and valid as nothing to suggest that this was and reasonably prolonged that his detention was in any way and reasonable so i get i think i do i wish i had found the case a little sooner but with the cotton farmer certainly there's enough to show that this pit bull really got us over the hump i do think and rereading the facts the pit bull is really what brings it to the next level and it's not just that he was in the car it's that he was acting aggressively in the parking combined with the training and experience and again just the touchstone of the fourth amendment that reasonableness is what we're looking at and i do think it's reasonable to assume that an aggressive couple like that could be a deterrent for a drug courier like trooper smith learned in his training so i can yield the remaining time to the point i do ask that you have  the district court there was reasonable suspicion it was developed before any questions were asked about the criminal history and thank you for your time thank you for you and your time that are going through various they have some rebut one of the issues that counsel said gives her some pause or some concern is that we're asking you all to adopt a standard by which if an officer announces he has disposed of the citation whether it be a warning or or a violation whether it be by warning or the traffic stop has to come to an end that's not what i'm doing here today even though that rule could easily enough be avoided by officers don't announce to your decision until you're riding out the paperwork but for them it's not about paperwork what rodriguez says is there are certain specific cases all those things that happened mr davis license had been run off for at address registration insurance asked about his travel and on those facts on that investigation said i'm going to issue you a warning he had done all the things that rodriguez allows for by that point so we're not cutting him short we're not cutting officers and future short bus a if you say i've addressed your situation by way of a warning but you haven't done the paperwork you've still got all the activity off get all the activity that rodriguez will allow allows as part of a traffic stop the other point that i would make when we're talking about the consideration of criminal history as a factor in reasonable suspicion  record and i quoted this within my rule twenty eight j later but i just want to make sure it's absolutely clear to this court when testifying before the district court the trooper stated after i told mr davis he was getting a warning all ran him on my computer and i that doesn't mean you're free to go so far he's still processing the information that it's entitled to receive so i don't it's not that that cut and dry i mean you're saying oh well he's not going to give me a ticket i'm out here that's not the way it works that no one up and i agree that we have to allow the officer some time to actually go ahead and complete the warning but at complete what he's investigating the information he's gathering  to comply with his reasonable suspicion or lack thereof well so let me address that in two parts one some time to do the paperwork that's i agree that's fine but that's the time to do the paperwork is not an detention i believe it's one of the factors that well i mean excuse may be poor but it's one of the factors that the that this court could consider arguably or the district court did consider and saying there was reasonable suspicion but my point is that as invalid said once you've set the tent and that was the reason you pulled him over and you can't keep him even to run his criminal history question him judge garwood then it is concurrent said that we're talking about a criminal history check here but what if we're talking about a license or registration or insurance in that case even if the officer made his announcement right up front i'm giving you a warning then yes we can detain him to run those computer checks and then if you read rodriguez what rodriguez makes clear is that permissible actions as part of  they are checking license checking for warrants checking registration checking insurance it does not list criminal history because things like criminal history dog searches those go go to just generalized ordinary investigation of general criminal