i'd like to focus one two if he's in this appeal the first is the extension of the detention in order to wait for the arrival of the greg sniffing dog and the second is the admission of substantive evidence of the drug courier profile opinions of the police officer this case unlike most of the cases cited by the parties has an unusual situation and that is that the police officer admitted that thirteen unlike many of the other cases where there's the either the canine shows up at the time that you're still doing the traffic violation investigation or the canine shows up while you're still asking questions and trying to determine if there are issues with regard to the registration none of that was going on while this delay was occurring none of that was going on along with the fact that the trooper admitted that that was the only reason he was being detained they didn't even believe your honour's that they were detaining him based upon reasonable suspicion i was there to search the vehicle that was his testimony so so the reason that you know that it wasn't getting worse now extending for further investigation on the drug amount was that they let him go they weren't detaining him because the minute that they had the citation if he had it for twenty minutes at that point according to the magistrate judge and according to the cop and so when they decided they were getting ready to search they wanted to try you in in accordance with your instructions when you want to do a search this is how you do it can let the guy go when you say you're free to go to protect him said he could have walked off at that point so he clearly wasn't being detained at that point based on reasonable suspicion and they do that in order as a ploy in you know our opinion  the holding was is that the dog sniff is not a search so if they were really detaining him based on reasonable suspicion which is what the government would like to lead you to believe they didn't need to let him go they knew or they didn't have reasonable suspicion i'm so that's why they did by illegal detention so there is still so the government have the obligation and a burden to prove that that was attenuated somehow that their consent was somehow separate based upon timing based upon the circumstances that somehow the of that amounts to reasonable suspicion upon which to the side and we've started a number of cases in which that constitutes a hunch not reasonable so what you do with rojas millon case was not cited by either party it's a two thousand decision by our courts which we have people officers in reno stopping somebody he tells me he's making a quick trip to reno and going back to stockton the officer suspicious about the short time frame and he's got a strong odor of perfume emanating from its interior which registration that isn't a basis for calling in a drug that isn't of basis for doing a search i knew it wasn't here what about what about your fresh meat well the air fresheners both the dea agent as well as car as well which is that reason that combined with the fact that the guy was from chicago had been to l a for one day and it turned around it was driving right back to chicago and that's very again that's rojas mill and we're only running between reno and stockton but the two hundred mile round trip i'm only here for a little while and turning right around and going back with a two factors that our courts relied upon and rojas i agree except i have to say that in this case what you had years and admission by the trooper that he had completed everything with you go to the traffic stop it and i think it mission by conduct when they said no we're not detaining you when he said no he could walk away no we're not detaining you based on reasonable suspicion in order to be able to search this car they must have been saying that when they said to him you're free to go if they weren't saying that judge then what they did was they were basically coercing him into consent and then we fall right into the consenting to which was the basis for that search it's either one or the other he was either free to go suspicion either that or the other argument that we have in the brief is that it was simply a ruse in order to be able to coerce him into existence i'm still i'm still struck by the fact of the time laughs between when  n the opening brief the canine unit arrived at one twenty two the citation was handed to mr percy at one thirty six the consent form for search was signed at one thirty eight so the canine unit was already there the kind of canine unit been there since one twenty two and this was all confirmed by the by the computer so that the dog the dog and the three cop cars at this point the canine unit are all standing there i don't know whether they're and that's when i had forgotten about that but that's exactly right you remember the ethnic origin right it's really it's a ruse to make the person feel that they're actually free to go when indeed they're standing on the side of a highway there's a canine behind in their three cop cars they have reasonable suspicion to detain him that forty thirty or twenty three minutes at that point and that's what they were doing was they were detaining them based on reasonable suspicion ok then he was in detention when the consent was signed if instead what they're saying is no he supreme court in deciding bill or versus at least imply of the rejected the distinction that you're trying to draw that we parse these three and counters so finally that if we find that the justification for the initial stop was over because the citation was completed at that point the officer has to let the defendant go even though we might rule as a matter of law that the facts the officer articulated by further investigation i think the issue here is whether or not the facts are such that you can convert within five initially simply a routine vehicle code traffic stop for following too closely with cle rod and into reasonable suspicion to believe that this guy might have to run but you know my look into the eyes of the trooper is a lot different than somebody who's holster taking because they're so nervous the other factors are all factors that would apply to any number of innocent travelers i have very little have those factors too i mean if the guy conflicting answers that he had and and none of that happened here they didn't they didn't proceed along with questions like that of mr st other see and there were no two passengers which you see a lot getting different stories about where they were going and where they'd been and why they w his and it was at one thirty six that the defendant signed the consent the consent to search so the real issue is whether or not within that twenty minute period of time this officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that some criminal activity was afoot and the defendant would have the court believe that there was nothing that was occurring no other investigative techniques or anything was going on at that time and i would submit to the court that if you look at the report recommendation that there were because that one team has more trooper martin  that were there so there were some other activity that was occurring during that time it is true that the canine officer arrived at one twenty three and it was approximately thirteen minutes from that point in time to the point in time to which the defendant signed the consent to search and the magistrate and the district court accepted those findings in its report recommendation it found that there was reasonable suspicion of pointed to five factors that it took into consideration one was the nervousness the fact that if any did make eye contact with him to the air fresheners what was important to the magistrate with regard to the air fresheners was the number of air fresheners the location and the overwhelming odor that was coming from them apparently there were three air fresheners on the passenger side of the of the car and based on that officer training experience he found that to be odd he had been taught that there are times when drugs furthermore this trooper had previously been a member of the highway patrol drug interdiction yes for so he had some experience yes that's correct your honor he did have training in that  regard and also i would point out that the officer also the measure the court found another important factor in that was the travel plans the fact that he said he was going from chicago to long beach and then he was going back and was not  nt with the average traveling motor motoring public and furthermore what also drew suspicion is with the car had illinois license plates and the defendant had a california driver's license he thought that was unusual and also it was believed that was an absent third party so the district the trial court found that those factors were sufficient to justify that twenty minute period of time for which the defendant was detained why didn't they just go ahead with the search why did they tell him that he was free to go ok he wasn't free to go ok well the position the government has at one thirty six when he issued him the citation at that point the investigation everything that the officers had learned at that time did not did not feel they had probable cause right then to arrest him and search the car at that point in time they did everything they could with regard to their investigation they have reasonable reasonable suspicion to detain him for that period of time but after that they felt they did not they did not have the authority to automatically search that vehicle so they did what they have to do when they they didn't have the authority to search in their minds so then they give him the citation and they tell me to go and it was not a ruse not refuse to consent to search so they are there complying with charges violence way which basically states the proposition that there has to be some type of a break from the detention to the point in time caused just to hold them up there they have to have reasonable suspicion though correct at the dog and walked around the exteriors of the car that's interesting point your honor in the reporting recommendation and at the motion to suppress the testimony  dog circled the car to be fair at trial it came out when that canine handler was brought in and testified he testified that the dog circled the car did not alert but then went inside the car and clearly the act of going inside the car is a search at that point but but that didn't occur until after the twenty minutes till after the twenty minutes until after the defendant so i think it's a sign the consent to serve yes your honor it's a government's position the officers had any guns that were drawn to the canine unit and the other officer were in the back with regard to reading miranda warnings were they required no because he was not under arrest he was advised that he had the right not to consent in fact on a consen search form it said that and it was written both in english and spanish and if fact he actually went down with his hand when he was reading the spanish portion of the content i don't think it's understood misfortunes i don't think she is challenging that if you c beyond that issue which is what we're concerned about here but is there anything otherwise wrong with the consent form itself as i understood her argument it's the teeth that invalidates no matter what the  forms in essence they didn't have a right to ask him for consent at that point that they should have just let him go well the well they did let him go your honor by telling him he was free to leave while the very seconds later said you know colombo li be just the same way that any other citizen would be able to talk to an individual and if that person wishes to talk to the officer he may or that the person may also choose not to even be on their way and i believe the officer was clear that in this case the detention due to the suspicion of the traffic stop so your honor for those reasons we've asked the court would sustain in affirm the lower court's determination on that issue i i don't know if more time you would want to afford to the government to respond to this but there's another extremely serious issue in this case that i didn't have time to address and i would just urge the court to look at the drug profiler drug courier profile evidence that was  be sort of two lines the cases the pending on whether we're talking about profile as opposed to modus operandi or evidence i think we understand that i would like to ask you know going back to the t v issue we really do