suppress because first the stop was a long beyond the time reasonably need to complete the mission to stop and second because there is no separate fourth amendment basis on which to justify the extension of  linger too long on the facts of the given case from our room or this court i'm worried that the court has reviewed the record likely as are the d v d s as well and read the transcripts but i think it bears a little bit of time on the facts of this case because it is a factually intensive case in the instant case the defendant was driving what i would call worse than that approximately eleven o'clock at night as he was doing so he was using his active hazard lights because one of his headlights was out and in fact he had been pulled over in another community for the same offense earlier that evening so when the officer pulled him over because this is a violation of there's no question about whether the stop was justified when they also pulled him over the defendant was only able to give him the ticket instead of the license showing that in fact this is happened before and that there was no ability of the defendant to get why since at that time he spoke briefly with the driver there was a pass and sure in this manner as well nothing was noted about the passenger at that time and the officer returned to his car performed the license tracks some of what the officer does is difficult to tell from the videotape because there is the use of code and given technology there's an increased use of a typewriter or a laptop and so it's sometimes difficult to tell when exactly the officer is done something or what exactly he has done with it appears that when he got to the car he ran a check of the license he requested it came on to come to sniff the unit and he did that because when he was speaking with the defendant this was a summer day the defendant was wearing a sleeveless shirt and on his left shoulder he had a tattoo of a marijuana the officer indicated in his testimony at the suppression hearing that while he had never seen a case like this he hadn't seen anything in  case law and he didn't have any particular experience with people with suzyn negating drug usage didn't seem suspicious to him he thought of more likely than not that the defendant had marijuana in the officer on that basis indicated that he was going to request a canine for the comforts of that car he ran the license it appears that at that time the license came back it can also suggest that there was a reference to the license plate but the reason that i think that it came back they were invalid is that it was at that time about five minutes into the stop that the officer says some of them on the tape like he was looking for something and it wasn't there it was asked that hi morris in that he called for backup and an officer suster arrived approximately eight minutes after that after calling for the backup then the license was running again is that the eight minute mark where it's confirmed license is valid and clear and i had no trouble with the time frame up to this point this court and others have recognized that in a minute ten minute stop is certainly understandable given the time that it takes for a license and the time that it takes to write out the traffic ticket or citation should be noted that the officer at the suppression hearing was unable at this point to say whether or not he had even be he certainly wasn't aware whether the ticket been written by that point and it wasn't returned to the dependent at the time the stop and approximately eight minutes then the officer approached the car spoke with the officer and requested that he be given a photo identification card he looked at the photo identification card and his flashlight on it and leave went back to the car or look at it and it was shortly after this that officer wanted to try to search the car and there was a discussion about the best way for the officers to go about that and one comment that was made by officer sr was you know if you want to tell us the car then how about if we two minutes later is of the seventeen minute mark that the passenger came back with a warrant for his arrest and it was known to the officers shortly thereafter that it was for a traffic matter and not for anything more significant than that would say that the reverse was true the sub was prolonged to try to get the drug dog there is not a question about whether there was was reasonable suspicion call the dog there's a question about reasonable suspicion as to whether the car can be search justified it was the requesting of the driver's license from nasa that's the more troubling aspect particularly given that it came thirteen or so minutes into the stop long after the and it was considered then and the extension there was briefer in fact that total stop only took thirteen minutes but it was considered by this court to been too long of a process and there was considered to officer there were other factors that simply didn't exist here there was no commentary about the passenger in any aspect until his license came back as having a warrant out for his had and to someone address the question address a moment ago about whether or not reasonable suspicion was necessary to justify the call dog ordinarily there wouldn't be a need for the office to justify the request from the driver's license and that has happened in many cases and it's understood and accepted in harrison particular but the driver's license in those cases i believe in baldwin as well was requested at the outset stop right at the beginning let's make sure we don't have any problems here and that can be justified for officer safety when it comes thirteen minutes into a stop when all other avenues have have been unavailable to the officer then it becomes suspicious and becomes what has been termed by i believe the core person with sockets and then repeated later it becomes purely a sudden a few for being able to search the car and and that's what happened here were i guess that just and then briefly summarize the facts after the passenger was found to have a traffic warrant for his arrest eventually there was the removal of the passenger from the car and then there's a request right directive made to the driver and we don't really know because officer sister wasn't miked up for this transaction so the conversation that he had with the driver isn't really available to us at this stage the consent there was obtained is invalid because it wasn't timely requests there is requirement whether it's through terri or a bias or harris that there be a rational relationship between the reason to extend the stop and the initial stop and that simply wasn't present in this case the first question the we ask in a terri analysis is whether was justified at the inception it clearly was this in this case of the defendant was driving with defective equipment there's no question about the stop the second question the more important here is one of the officer's actions reasonably related in scope to the reason for the stop and that ended at about the eight minute mark everything to that point was appropriate the request from the dog the request for the license track double checking license is acceptable as well but at that point the officer and everything he needed to deal with the stop and to that extent you have to keep in mind that the passenger is completely unrelated to the driver's license situation this was an aside as in paris where the officer any so this is policy that he always asks for the  both the passenger and the driver so that if the driver has a problem and is unable drive the car rather than have it so the passenger rights are away and in harris the driver's license was suspended it was the same situation in roughly the driver's license was invalid at that time period there was a question about that the driver's license was valid he didn't have it but he presented the ticket that explained why he didn't have it and he should have at that point been allowed to that he was given his photo identification back there was no reason for him to believe in those circumstances that he was from italy at this point the mission should have been include in all of the cases with say that where the driver's licenses been provided and the concerns that the officer may have generated that present a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is a float and been extinguished the fact that there was a grotesque doesn't seem to have been given much credit even by the trial or which implicitly recognize that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the prolonging stop but again ruled on the grounds of consent we would we would ask the court to find that the consent was not validly tainted because it was requested far beyond the time it was necessary to accomplish the mission of th of the trial order and reversed the defendant's convictions right because without the subsequent stop after the twenty three minute mark there is no evidence of intoxication right so because the south involved a look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not the fact that the stock ended up being roughly fourteen minutes was actually proper and in this case it was postpones under when backed up arrives and they talked for about two minutes about the nature of the incident what's going on and how they should move forward in the house hundreds information is also gathered at that time almost minutes i'm sorry the court says but it's approximately fifteen minutes but when we look at the take total time it's about forty or so at that point he gets in some form of identification that has his name on it until it's a little unclear from the video way at the out where the officer is being given but i mean what else was there to do regarding this so regarding the stop after he receives the defendant's physical id of some sort i'm back when back up arrives and they talk for a few minutes might my presumption that it's police procedure when back up arrives that perhaps regardless of whether or not the stop could be completed at that point you talk about what's happening during this incident so backup is aware of i guess i this is just seems to me that this is the point where they have us have some suspicion or some concern about something and it can't be about lights the headlight being out can't be that there isn't a valid license for the driver what is the so the audio is pretty choppy and it's difficult to discern what exactly they're referring to and if when they returned the defendant license or identification to hand at that time they're going to ask for consent to search the vehicle it's a little so because he has an hour a warrant out for his or rats now he's being arrested in that it tends to stop five minutes longer and then after they finally of rest him that's when the defendant  it's my understanding that they couldn't see much so i think it would be reasonable for them to ask to search the vehicle and the defendant had an opportunity to say now he could have completely refused it and he decided it was very clear that the officer was trying different means to be able to access the car into inspector going from hoping that there was something in the license that would be able to get him into the car to then requesting eventually that the has injure provide a license though there was no need for that whatsoever the passenger the need to drive the car and therefore the request isn't just by the way it was in harris and robin and one of the concerns  about and counsel certainly right that that the officers can request the driver's license of the passenger but only to the extent of the doesn't call time and here it did and that was the one that's why officer was doing what he was doing and as he was doing so if that's allowed then when we get to is it we have a passenger car with three passengers or or then we try the driver first and that doesn't work now we go to the next as in your and with we spend five minutes checking the license of every individual in the car then we get twenty minutes just to do that and that should generally be enough time for the os or do what he wants to do which is to get a dog  that i had seen is there such a situation where the officer asks incrementally for a license from each of the passengers in the car but there are a number of cases baldwin i believe being one have four passengers in the car and licenses are identification rastan each person at the time that the officer approached the car went back and ran them and again was able to do all of this in the bourne happen in a time here so that's one of the concerns that that are missing and the court noted that and was partially penalize in the state for that when it was reaching some of its findings because there's approximately a ten minute or so segment that simply isn't there on  radio all that comes after the time concerns that are present here for the defendant that came way after twenty three minute mark but during the investigation or do you why there is a portion that is missing and i think that that explains the and it was too long at that point not so much because of just absolute time but because the officer accomplished what he needed to do and it was related to the basis for the stop and there's nothing else that justified the officers station or the need to look into the car the fact that he says he needn't look into the car because he couldn't see into the car seems to me to turn the plane you know or not if there are no further questions and i would simply