map fast food wrappers into trash bags see signs of nervousness and one or two hanging flannel shirts that's that's what he has to go on at this point what does officer butler do with those traffic stop yes the man was speeding yes that's not on the question about that that's not the issue is kind of happily surprised to get a warning yes no question about that now the propriety of the stop with not an amount of nervous behavior wasn't there yes ok his hands were shaking yes that's one of the things you certainly he observed rapid talking a shift in the way he would talk on that that was that was not initially that was after he had to get out of the car and started asking all of these detail questions but if a person's behavior changes during the course of the interrogation isn't that a factor that can be considered by the police where they said you know you got to look at the farthest you know you're looking at the trial in the circumstances and i think that would be one of the trees in the farce but i think your answer has to be it depends on the nature of the change in the behavior but the nervousness and starts to himself i want to calm the situation down it's got really excited so i'm just going to engage in all of the chit chat how you do it or you go on are you coming from anything wrong with  to gets to the point of intrusive questioning there is no matter what the officer subjective intent it's understand after ren the officer subjective intent appears to be pretty much irrelevant and that you know that's the pre hours away i would agree kenny go any further any further from the theater yeah i suppose then your hypothetical he could go further answer that question can you ask about travel plans when you've just stopped somebody for speeding the eleventh circuit the tenth circuit have the word cases where they say no you can't you get the driver's license and registration you do what you need to some questioning i think you have to look at when did these factors occur because you've got you know you can break this down into three heart you've got the first part is should he have started the questioning to begin with and i'm suggesting to you know a lot pretty clear about that and now that the ninth circuit addressed this peripherally and didn't answer the question in the shadows valens whale a case of four and said questions regarding our travel plans are probably justified but we don't have to answer that question and this was and i submit to you that in this case you may have to answer that question i understand your argument to be that you can look  encreased nervous reaction is in response to a man committed questions that nervous reaction you can't pay any attention to because it's coming as a product of his non permitted questions and so you're saying well the rap and talking comes after he's asking questions that aren't permitted and that's your argument yes the question for us then is ok at what point are the questions no longer permitted and the product of those questions no longer available to him to use as a basis for suspicion for the convenience correct that's the but what if he was driving seven thousand miles in two weeks the car with overdue he said he went to san bernardino for one day and he couldn't say why why was only one day and interestingly enough even though the car rental was overdue and pierce provided the explanation i called an extension it was never checked that that obviously think rise to that great a level of suspicion i see it on about a half minute  right i think it's reasonable to determine there any reason to suspect that he was asking that sort of question now but i think it's again i think from the circumstances the travel questions are we still well but you gave me a travel question and yes are all travel questions i would suppose the yes and what do you think the officers reaction would be well i don't i don't believe when an individual is asserting his right to remain silent that there can be anything negative thing i'll answer any question you want to ask about the car or the cruise control i don't know in that circumstance you don't think the dog would come or maybe not you know but you're here what happened was that when he started to ask some questions the answer is them circumstances and how do you justify that it that it would lead to further questions why would offer the court the increased nervousness on the part of the defendant and his responses and the answers that he was providing the subject of the substance of the answers in other words when he said he was visiting this his friend in san bruno and and only gone for one day travel from tennessee to san bernardino and again the increased nervousness that these questions continue and why would you travel that distance just to visit a chat warning and then just as the guy starts to walk away if you mind if i talk to a little bit more and then a series of questions that get more and more detail the purpose of this lead up is the question do you know whether this  standard routine by the us their officers or talk to engage in this kind of change to a list that possibly inconsistent information that might lead to justification for further search i don't recall this part of the train or not you're out of time so i didn't hear you i don't recall for sure whether that's part of their training or not you don't really know all did you ever know well i seem to recall some reference  beginning when he walks up to the car maybe them earlier than that but something and he walked off the car he's treating this as you know i may have a drug runner here rather than i just have a speeder and every question thereafter is calculated based upon that exhibit increased nervousness if you had not given answers which were inconsistent with reason then he would not have been able to continue the question of the kind of but i would submit that based on the increased nervousness and the increased inconsistency the information he provided led the officers to continue answering those questions so just the general question with regard to cravell this is not again from the government's perspective an unreasonable question had he not exhibited those increase believe that this is a carte blanche situation allowing the officer just ask anything that he wanted to ask there has to be some basis for the australian ask those questions and again the nervousness the increased nervousness i recognized when that let's start he walks up to the that's enough so that his mind he has some suspicion and at that point he starts asking about travel quick and your view is ok to ask about travel plans like where you go on how long about you know how long you've been on the road and those questions are ok course of travel why is that a legitimate question which i understand and i wouldn't totally agree that it's a legitimate question if he says is there an emergency like are you a doctor or where's the fire understand that this was not obviously that question it was based on his initial observations you mean those questions were based upon his suspicion that there may be drugs i think that's what you said to me earlier that was part of his training that put him on n and i was simply off the court of general question with regard to travel does not it is not intrusive to now and that's a different question how is that question about travel related to the purpose of stop it now i didn't ask whether was intrusive i asked how is it r a person's course in travel and why it was related to the stop of the speeding on the on the interstate and it seems to me that it would be a legitimate area inquiry to the office but i still in her you say it was related i just heard you say it was for stressing about revitalising really don't need much the government's position would create a carte blanche you can ask any questions about anything at any time and that's why he believes very any question that anything he didn't say are you a drug dealer he didn't say i mean there are all sorts of