issue before the court today is the district courts here in suppressing a firearm drugs and drug paraphernalia found on or near mr chito the district court erred in suppressing the evidence because the evidence was seized as the result of a lawful traffic stop the fourth amendment authorizes a traffic stop a terry stop on probable cause of a traffic violation a passenger is lawfully stopped with the vehicle he seized under the fourth amendment as a categorical matter the fourth amendment authorizes police officers conducting a traffic stop to order the passenger out of the vehicle pending completion of the stop and the further and fourth member for their empowers the officers to identify ask them questions of the passenger officers proceeded to deal with the passenger who is the defendant here and then there were subsequent events he ran and he was apprehended and then all that interrogate or after hand sees mr achieve them what do you say to that your honor the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the traffic stop was complete at the time that the officers arrested the driver and placed him in the patrol car that the question of when a traffic stop is complete is a question of law it's reviewed by the court and the government is simply aware of no authority holding that arrest of a driver a completion of a traffic stop to the contrary supreme court in this court's precedent holds that when a police officer is conducting a terry stop discover reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a criminal matter that that discovery expands the scope of the seizure and the stop under the fourth amendment if it doesn't it doesn't restrict it so here the fact that the officers had arrested the driver and placed him in the car for officer safety as a matter of law simply does not and the traffic stop additional rest and the driver doesn't in the traffic stop what does well your honor among other things issuing a traffic citation and a very you can add levels so arresting them doesn't in the traffic stop but issue showing a ticket would well your honor in united states versus step this court has noted that a traffic stop is not complete  citation is issued and a broader level under the fourth amendment in florida versus royer for example the supreme court held that a terry stop continues as long as necessary to effect to wait the purposes of the stop so  rest ends up being the resolution of the purposes of the stop why doesn't that resolve the issue well here your honor because arrest on the criminal misdemeanor simply didn't complete the traffic stop one as a practical matter police are having their discretion the ability to on arrest someone if you will so the fact that someone has been arrested does not mean that that's the conclusion of the account or with the police here and as a matter of i'm just kind of struggling with that because then any time the police arrest somebody they get to keep on going with whatever they're involved in because they can subsequently arrest them well not necessarily your honor i don't think we have to go quite that broad here here we have in the in the exhibit submitted to the district court in this court as part of the suppression hearing we have the audio recording of that the traffic stop from the dash camera in addition to officers butler's testimony who testified at the evidentiary hearing and he said you can hear him clearly in the video he tells the gentleman you know as he's walking into the patrol car why do you have too many tickets it what's the story on your suspension the driver isn't sure and he says well i'm going to look into that i'm going to check it and we'll see what we have to do sometimes i can write right just an issue or summons i can let you go sometimes you have to go to jail see what we have to do all double check on that so arrest just isn't the end of the question for a seizure that and once that gentleman is arrested and taken into custody the traffic stops not over because the police officer has to deal with the car with and on license drivers are right at the very least your honor it was it was around ten thirty at night the car was running the lights were on the door was hadn't completed the basic police diligence that's part and parcel of a traffic stop the officers hadn't yet identified the passenger or the driver or the driver they had run a computer check on him they hadn't verified his identity or his license these are all things that this court in the supreme court of how there are basic parts of police diligence that are in that are necessary now that they are indicated that the law permits an officer to order a passenger out of the car yes your hon the fourth amendment does categorically permit officers to order a passenger out of a car pending completion of a traffic absolutely your honor with no reasonable suspicion particular to the passenger at all that's marilyn versus wilson your honor does that include ordering the passenger out of the car and requiring that he put his hands above his head and submit to a pet now well your hon we didn't ever get to a point where there was a pat down in this matter that that's a side issue that we need not address here that the fourth amendment catching or didn't get to the ordering him mad and telling him to place his hands above his head  weiss's fingers get that and that as a matter of officer safety was was permitted under the fourth amendment in the circuit that's in your argument run into problems based upon the supreme court's holding in arizona versus johnson before the officers proceeded were found i have a two part answer to that your outer first united states versus johnson on and that understanding is an applicable arizona versus arson arizona versus johnson isn't applicable because the police officers didn't prior to his flight and subsequent detention at which point the officers absolutely had reasonable suspicion flight from a lawful traffic stop gives reasonable suspicion particular to that individual whatever so after  with him and based upon a belief that they did have the right to presumably based upon their thinking that they have the right to risk or examine h did develop recently suspicion during the pendency of the stop but but the key here is that they were permitted to order him out of the car without reasonable suspicion under maryland versus wilson they didn't in fact frisk him they ordered him out and they asked him to  fingers above his head as a matter of officer safety the fourth amendment permits that and at that point mr cheatham flat there was no frisk plight prior to his flight and indeed to my to my knowledge there was no frisk ever of mr cheatham ultimately the can be ordered up they can all be patted down that's what the government lawyers are front of the district judge your honor that my understanding of the law at least the pat down portion of that without reasonable suspicion is an inaccurate statement of the law but the statement that they may be ordered out passengers and occupants of a lawful stop vehicle may be ordered out and maybe ordered to to leave their fingers above their head for officer safety is a correct statement of the law under the fourth and where do you get the ladder requirement  from a general reasonableness of in terms of officer safety it's when we're looking at reasonableness under the fourth amendment that is the touchstone officer safety is a court it's the judge conclusion is whether it's reasonable yes your honor it is a question of what did the officers that the traffic stop was not complete at the time that but yeah but going back to the question of what can you do we we are beyond will effectively beyond to accept the district judge its credibility determinations correct well it certainly would be a clearer view here and i just first on the issue of credibility the district court expressed some reservations but expressly stated that officer  still clear the fact of placing a driver under arrest and putting him in the in the top of the patrol car for officer safety pending completion of a stop that simply doesn't and the traffic stop indeed here the officers did go back they issued the traffic citation they ran the check on the driver they identified him they double checked a suspension not the officers engaged in the remainder of police diligence that's part and parcel of a traffic stop and ultimately issued the traffic citation once mr cheatham had been brought under control and officer safety was restored and took him to jail both of them yes your honor that they did take both both the driver and the passenger to  something called special response team so their real goal is to go out and and they testify to that make as many stops as possible make as many contacts as as possible and i think they exploited this situation complete compliance he immediately pulled over he immediately and readily admitted he didn't have a driver's license at that point he was taken out of the car he was patted down he was arrested he was searched he was placed in a cruiser and locked in a cruiser and that point the purpose of the traffic stop was completed while the stop is ongoing the supreme court completed they had no right to order him out of the car with his hands up and his fingers interlock and interestingly the officer admitted that had it been a district court judge that was in the same situation and she's a white female that officer maybe we would not have now with her the same way that they were dealing with mr cheatham because the purpose of the traffic stop was accomplished officer completion of this then he had this purpose of the stop was completed so the way they did it the way they were very much of the car that was  there is no that i know published six circuit opinion addressing the issue directly there are several unpublished opinions and there are some opinions which kind of raised the issue but then really decided  there was an opinion for instance united states versus castello the judge clearly was on a panel in that case the defendant was fleeing from the after at high speed reckless driving which was a new crime that he committed so if the response to illegal arrest is a new crime the police certainly has a right to pursue that you know crime and in that case it was a high speed reckless driving that that violates the obeying a police officer ordinance but she found as a matter of the fact that there was no order to mr cheatham to stop so he did not really disobey and the order and second in michigan people citizens have a right to this to obey  so that force of where the defendant was punching and kicking the police are so that there was a new crime and also there was a tennessee case but the tennessee law says that it the fact that the police officer conduct is illegal that is indifference to michigan law which specifically the common law gives them the right to do that so the citizen american citizen at least in michigan doesn't have to put out with illegal police conduct and we have to be mindful if we allow that when we would be if the police officer is beating a suspect the officer stated he might or might have not been and she then asked would you then approach me and want to me out of the car oh my hands raised and my fingers interlocked to which the officer responded it depends if there  something else that would indicate that there was a suspicious to which they apply this to court but this is the same situation as here you testify that nothing happened to indicate  justification for forest search which is the same here he was seized illegally before he fired and in that case again it was based on a tennessee law and dissent there was a discount by judge griff is shortness of the time of the stop like a difference here is the shortness of the length or the time of the stop make a difference here i think it makes no difference the six the fourth amendment law is clear that it is not the reasonableness is not based on the time and sometimes two minutes can be too much and sometimes an hour is not reasonable time a was number one unprovoked why the police officer the convoy of the police car the sent in on the area a young man saw them and started running and it was that unprovoked flight that the supreme court that reaching they were doing something they should not do something that was unreasonable and unconstitutional and mr cheatham had every right to resist that they provoked him to asking him to get out of the car by engaging in this overreaching action asking him to get out of the car with his hands raised up with his fingers interlocked even though he was doing nothing criminal and even  the driver was arrested for this procedure with the car on the passenger they were arrested the driver took care though there was nothing indicating that he was armed there was nothing indicating he was dangerous there were no drugs found on the driver do or simply no reason for doing all right thank you very much disagree with my colleagues characterization their officer butler testified that judge nuff asked officer butler a couple of questions about if my husband and i had been in a car and there'd been no taillights and he said he didn't have a license would you have taken him out and put him in the back seat of the patrol said based on the totality of the circumstances i make that evaluation case by case if i had no observations at all no reason to believe that you were involved then there's a chance i would not have and then you followed up and said my partner was the person who asked mr cheatham out of the vehicle and after he got his sense of the stop i wasn't the one who asked mr cheatham out officer nevins was the one so i disagree with the characterization that the officer said he wouldn't have ordered the district court out in any event i think that's really to one side here the stop was ongoing at the time that the officers approached mr cheatham it wasn't complete as a matter of law the officers hadn't completed their diligence and more stepping back to the general terry standard that there must be a proper basis for the traffic stop in the stop must be reasonably limited in scope here it absolutely was the stop was reasonable in duration as your honor pointed out two minutes and thirty seconds in and additionally it was reasonable in investigative me means the officers at the point that they approached mr cheatham had only engaged in the core activities that officers diligent officers are empowered to do and in fact instructed to do under the fourth amendment a position that the arrest did not complete the traffic stop that the officers could approach that the whole order mr cheatham male tell him to put his hands above his head  our life his fingers and pat him down is that your position no your honor i would stop just short of the pat down and that is short of the pain whether or not the arrest is completed where where the the no  how far do they get to go with mr cheatham no matter what no matter where you are on the arrest it depends on where we are in the fourth amendment seizure of the terry process here the terry stop was not complete it involved a vehicle accordingly mr cheatham could be ordered out of the vehicle in order to lace his hands above his head for officer safety and that is exactly what happened here what is your best case for saying that there is a bright line rule that ordering someone ad of the car includes the ability to demand that they write their not not that it's a reasonable list determination we ha the reasonable and the determination made by this district court i'm asking you is there a bright line rule that you can point me to in the law well your honor if i can just separate out the reasonable suspicion factors there need reasonable suspicion to order mr cheatham out so every minute of ok so let's begin there right there needs to be no reasonable suspicion to say passenger get out of the car that's exactly right where this the necessity for reasonable suspicion attach  reasonable suspicion would need to attach in order to complete a pat down or in order to detain mr cheatham individually beyond the original detention  beyond the bounds of the original terri stop so reasonable suspicion of some sort of criminal activity permits the officers to prolong what would have been the reasonable scope of the traffic stop is there a distinction between requiring someone to leave of the call and no strike that is there is the seizure distinct from asking someone to step out of the vehicle  passenger you need to get out of the vehicle that's a removal from the vehicle during the process when i say to the passenger face the car put your hands over your head in a why should fingers is that the seizure stop that's still within the bounds that's an officer safety component within the scope of the original terry stop gap so that you would say that is not a seizure and does not require any probable cause any reasonable suspicion nothing while the entire terry stop your honor is a seizure there's no doubt here that mr cheatham was seized he was lawfully season of the fourth amendment pursuant to a traffic stop so it's actually part of a seizure but it is not a set of activities beyond the scope of that seizure it is that ordering him out and ordering him to put his hands above his head is within the fourth amendment province of that terry stop that that the seizure of mr cheatham pursuant to a traffic stop and you think that the breakdown point is pet yes your honor i see that you're out of