for relief from the court we have three alternative requests first suppression of the evidence based on the failure to the officers to comply with the fourth amendment as analyzed by him excuse me rodriguez and evans second dismissal based on the outrageous conduct of the officers in using unreasonable force and attempting to extract a quid pro quo when mr  his name and third and to the district court for two reasons first because there was a failure to follow the required article three procedure and that the magistrate judge made a report recommendations but the district court did not engage in the required to nova review of the evidence and age no determination of the matter including the contested issues which included quite a bit of  contested credibility concerns and also along with remained the magistrate judge applied the incorrect legal standard in addressing the motion to suppress the magistrate judge applied turban rather than and did so in the car and and specifically found that the stop was the duration of the stop was reasonable overall because of the concerns the officers had about the young women in the back seat so even the turban finding was not related to our client and the extension of the stop to pursue our client's name then clarify these sort of credibility contradictions as and  credibility issues do relate to the handcuffing of mr lantos but is not limited to that it does also impact the motion to suppress because mr officer baker claimed that he had concerns about alcohol the smell of alcohol that was not the two civilian witnesses disagreed with that both said that they were told by officer baker he was asking for id because he was concerned about a curfew violation no one in the car was ever given any kind of test to determine if alcohol had been used there was never any question made to anyone in the car about the use of alcohol or whether anyone had been drinking and given the extreme credibility problems with all four officers and in particular with officer baker because it was officers baker officer baker's declaration that formed the basis for the magistrate judges determination his credibility does impact also the decision on the motion to suppress he only focused on the girls and their age he never at any time said that he had any reason to ask mr lantos for his id other than that it was standard operating procedure and in fact that's what the magistrate judge noted in his are in are that he was concerned about that he it was standard operating procedure magistrate judge got it wrong in concluding that it was a lawful order to supply identification that's not correct under arizona law and order to supply identification is then they could ask for the id presumably they could have at that point the there had already been an extension of several minutes of the stop dedicated solely to had and officer baker and romero both testified to this he was already arrested and the decision had been made to arrest him based on his refusal to identify himself before they saw those beer bottles as he was being taken out of the car and handcuffed that's when they saw the beer bottles so at that point we've already got a  violation i also want to and and there's never any place where officer baker or any other officer testifies otherwise  turning to the handcuffing now i know it is not common for a court to use its supervisory power to dismiss however the conduct here was truly outrageous and what we see is man put in handcuffs and kept in extreme pain for thirty minutes during which time he is continually asking for help every single one of the officers is not credible on this point officer baker says that was it was officer romero who put on the handcuffs that's about the only thing we can be sure of but officer baker says that we checked we meaning himself and romero checked the cups multiple times that is contradicted by the video evidence which as we point out neither the magistrate judge nor of course the district court judge referred to or there's no indication they took it into account at all no one checked his cuffs while he was in the cruiser  and further contradicting that at the end of the video evidence the dash cam evidence we have baker at the car with mr lyon darrow's it at this is a thirty minutes point thirty minutes and twenty seven seconds saying we're going to fix it so after half an hour he says we're going to fix it romero says contradicting baker who said they checked it multiple times romero says i didn't need to check it because i'd already checked it presumably meaning when he first handcuffed him that's not reflected in the video evidence and then we have baker i mean sorry romero on tape at the commissary of evidence just i watched some of that it doesn't actually show much i mean landis and we have this officer romero saying to lend us oh the right one is for circulation i mean the problem is that this is an extremely unusual basis for thank you part i mean has that has had hurt badly that's what we have well and what we have is not not limited to the plaintiffs one believe is having a quid pro quo it's the quid pro quo and that's what's illegal here everything we have pages and pages in the three case and complain about that is another option and i'd also just like to point out i'm going to stop soon and save my time for rebuttal there were dash cam video here which is great it adds a lot to it clearly these officers were very angry with m they're not going to punch him when they're on camera but to express put him in excruciating pain and leave him there and then essentially taunt him is what happened here and then they were that they taught him over and over again your honor when he asked for relief and asked that his cuffs be tightened and they said what's your name what's your name yeah you know montana also says you're going to treat me with respect you're going to talk to me with respect what's your name there are probably morning your honor may it please the court i'm sure riess are saying this is united states attorney on behalf of the united states i will turn to point three it seems like that was the area of interest for the court regarding the initial stop i'm sorry you said you're going to turn to what point issue three regarding the the stock itself and the government's position is that the defendant has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in denying the motion to suppress and it's been contested but where is clearly  applied the wrong standard then where you don't review for clear error of facts we were for we were view for the fact that he had the wrong standard and what would happen if he applied the right standard but what's what clear you i don't understand him to be making a factual contention of clear air there there was no air that is in the defendant hasn't shown that the lower court did err in its factual incredibility findings regarding the stop itself into the act i'm just curious regarding the findings that were made why wasn't there any reference to the video footage in terms of the credibility determinations and what actually transpired i can't say for sure why the magistrate didn't reference the video itself but the video itself was shown at several different points about twelve different times to the magistrate judge and then acknowledge receipt of of the exhibit that's on the record and also there was no objection from the government isn't there contradiction and in some respects between the video and the findings i'm not sure they matter but when he said that they'd defend him was never cooperative and it was at points he was quite corporative at the beginning for example when they handcuffed him and when they walked into the car he was perfectly calm and cooperative yes your honor in those those were also brought out in those were brought out in the in the evidence you're hearing but then they heard the description seems to say otherwise the description in and  but the magistrate judge didn't say how much weight if any was given to the video to the videotape as opposed to how much weight was given to the officers testimony because the defendant was relying heavily on the video evidence to support his version of events and the magistrate judge didn't grapple with the discrepancy between the defendant's version supported by the video as he asserted and the officers testimony and that appears to be kind of missing from the analysis noted your honor but the the court is not required to state it's not required to state it weighed one evidence more heavily than the other  cited in our in our brief that so long as the just records view of the evidence is plausible in light of the record it can't be clearly erroneous because even if the review in court would have weighed the evidence differently had it set at the trier of fact and heavily relied upon by the defendant seems to be amiss i understand your honor but no evidence suggests that the magistrate or the district court disregarded or just counted it based on the fact that the video was attached to the defendant's motion to dismiss also that as as noted before the during the evidentiary hearing the videotape was played for the magistrate judge about twelve different times the defendant discussed the videotape at l in his argument to the magistrate judge for example the met i'm sorry go ahead and lastly that the magistrate acknowledge admission of the two videos as evidence as the only thing that was admitted and was not objected to by the government and your question your honor  could we address to stop to begin with what was the basis when was he arrested and what was the basis for the arrest and what was the basis for demanding that he provide identification or its name at the point that it was first demanded sure the basis of the initial stop was a traffic violation right and so there were separate reasonable suspicion so after the stop officer baker smells all call in the car and he notices that the occupant occupants under age he doesn't specify which occupants later on in cross examination he does that he thought that just the backseat driver might put him you know he didn't think glenn dress was underage well it's i'm sure he does say that the occupants and so although asking for id is permitted as part of an ongoing traffic stop and you don't need additional reasonable suspicion for that that is consistent with rodrigues what is permitted asking for the identification of past non driver yes in that cited indias versus cason a to which we do cite in our brief and so the officer had separate reasonable suspicion to continue to continue to detain the occupants for the separate reasons of possible underage occupants when there were three occupants and he later says no he didn't think landrieu us was under age that he thought a lot of us was under age so i'm assuming that he never thought my interest was under age so i gather going to quibble with that but i don't know on what basis and when he said specifically he didn't think that well putting that aside even if he didn't know about the age whether the he was twenty two at the time which you know anyone can determine whether someone is over twenty one if they're when you're above it he didn't think so he didn't say that's why he was doing it he didn't it didn't reflect that in this report but even so the court has held that a period of detention may be permissibly extended where new grounds for suspicion of criminal activity continue to unfold and that is the government position the defendant refused to provide identification he was asked to x it was but so far that's the the the key question is on what basis your position i gather is that when you make a traffic stop you can for determining whether there was in this case it was a curfew violation where anyone who was under the age of nineteen in suspect timothy and let's assume he had no individualized suspicion of land to roast for anything because that seems to me to be the case  he didn't say he did he's never said he did as he then have the authority to ask everybody in the car for a traffic stop for and demand well demand no but he did command he did he did ask for it and the defendant was interjecting interrupting and he was the one who was providing morse reasonable suspicion for the defendant is to a suspicion of for the officer had every right to to to determine whether there was a curfew violation he was asking for identification the defendant was time to run he didn't say that's what he was doing rose i'm sorry if i said i understand when he testified he said he did not believe that land what does that occur from pickett is it eighteen or twenty one eighteen eighteen and he never said that he thought man for us was under eighteen or you know that's why he was still into the ever say that no not now ok so he never said it so where are we getting it from so let's assume it's not true for now ok if it's not true if he doesn't think that it wasn't the reason then does he have the authority to demand has he demanded he insisted on the identity and the name of a passenger in a car that's my question which was stop for a traffic stop correct and but also there was the reason gregory why yes he does have that authority he does have the authority to ask head of but he didn't just ask i mean that's clear he demanded it and he  the vehicle which is permissible to do when doing a traffic when executing a traffic stop so for that reason the it was permissible to ask him to exit and the defended himself provided the reasonable know that's what you're saying you're being or at least you're not being clear i apologize if i'm not being clear but the defendant also the the other issue that was being examined was whether there was unlawful consumption of alcohol there the defendant the officer did smell alcohol coming from the vehicle and i notice that my time is no i don't have and so for that reason it's not just the curfew violation the under eighteen it was also not one thing oh rest of the i mean the whole rest of the evidence is not terribly relevant to the stop except to the credibility determination right so if the finding of fact was that they did in fact smell this alcohol that's a there's no particular evidence in that either the magistrate judge or the district judge particularly just great judge ever did that i'm not sure i understand your question all i'm saying that it would appear that the credibility of germination about what happened after the arrest isn't terribly relevant to the to the arrest in the stop except if judge baker and officer baker his testimony about smelling the alcohol depends on the credibility of germination then it might be or what it be is my question if i'm understanding your question correctly there's nothing in the video evidence to contradict officer baker's credibility at the initial point of the stop all right your time is up thank you your honor you're absolutely correct officer baker testified it's in the excerpts of record seventy four the reason for the arrest was the failure to show identification of the government relied on d officer baker did testify that the reason for the arrest was the failure to show identification as your as your honor had said related to that both the magistrate judge in his are in our head that would be ok if they ha mandate and had to pay if they had reasonable suspicion of an independent of criminal wrongdoing so what about the the alcohol again the alcohol did not come up in the questioning of any of the passengers the alcohol was not mentioned to the girls they were told it was a curfew issue officer baker never said that he asked mr lantos for id or continued that pursuit of mr lined it was for anything related to alcohol and the magistrate judge  opposite that was a case where they asked for the passengers identification so he could drive the car when the driver had been arrested and finally under have all it's clear that it is a fourth amendment violation to arrest someone simply for the failure to identify themselves unless there is independent reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing counsel do you agree with opposing counsel that the videotape has no role to play in the credibility of terminations no your honor i do not and also counsel mention that it was played several times in the hearing very short snippets of it were played in the hearing certainly nothing to compare to the thirty minutes from the two different angles and two different sources of audio and again the magistrate magistrate judge never mentions the video in his our in our and so there's no indication that he what he didn't address the credibility concerns that had been raised