the court i represent the defendant lance montana in this consolidated case all three defendants filed motions to suppress challenging the traffic so i will argue for nine minutes on the challenge to the denial of the mo reserving two minutes of my time for a bottle or an eventual search of the card issue vala violated the fourth amendment first law enforcement lacked reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the traffic stop automobile it is a good description but the question is does the information and does the tip provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that's the distinction between the facts here in the cases cited by the district court and the government but it was linked to the bank robbery right very vaguely and it wasn't and the other cases a lot of times the tipster either saw a crime itself saw the suspects commit criminal activity in whatever car was described and then leave or at the very least all that deputy urn knew was that there was this great ford taurus and its general vague idea that it was near the scene that a robbery occurred and was seen leaving there was no evidence that the great ford taurus and it was not a law enforcement and while there is a visible i'm sorry that's visible yes that's correct your honor and so based off of just the vague information of the tip itself that doesn't lead to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity it doesn't rise to the level necessary to justify the seizure of the vehicle there's also the concern of how this information is being transmitted to law enforcement essentially was a game of telephone and that you have the she didn't see what occurred outside the bank so i guess you're a liability which again is part of the totality of the circumstances when determining whether reasonable suspicion existed so combining just the lack of strong information that this great court tourist was involved in by continuing to detain and question mr hill after reasonable suspicion no longer existed now it's easy to say because of what was discovered but of course it seems reasonable that deputy erd did what he did but looking at the facts that were known at the time reasonable suspicion did not exist at the time of the seizure and as he was walking up he learns that the tipsters no longer believe that gray ford taurus was involved and you can see why they think that for seemed nervous there was nothing according to deputy or that rosy red raised any red flags for him he didn't see any evidence of the robbery in the vehicle itself so when in these investigated sed investigative stops generally what is proper is that all along force meant can ask the suspect for his or her name general questions like your dad where you going where you coming from but at that point when the already weak information provided by p e seems to not be corroborated by what he sees at the scene and nothing that she responds with gives him any kind of concern or fear as you stated that he thought this great court taurus was involved in the robbery it should have stopped the stop was done because reasonable suspicion no longer existed at that point the witness that he believed that he changed his mind that the tourist was no longer involved or was he just concerned here she just concerned that he thought two people were running toward the carbon only salt one in it i think it's kind of both they and they had indicated they thought it was no longer involved they did state that and it was because they thought there was two people that were running towards the vehicle and they s people flee the bank but in the car they only saw one woman the would it be reasonable for the officer to think that perhaps somebody was concealed in the car and that's what caused them to come back and say can we all look in the trunk  it's reasonable just to seize the car to ask questions to ask those investigative questions as this court case law is indicated and if nothing about that interaction indicates it can't then go on a fishing expedition and ask your consent to search it with his mission in making the stop is to determine whether that particular car was involved in in a bank robbery right that's correct and you know the witness said there were two people running toward in and all of a sudden there was one in the car wouldn't it be reasonable to then say well let's to dispel our suspicion about that car's involvement let's see if somebody is hiding in the trunk if there was reasonable suspicion that that car was involved at all and that this kind of ties back in with the issues with just the really not a lot of great information in the initial tip but the the problem is is that reasonable suspicion no longer existed at that point so the investigation should have stopped and it's not proper to then that's what i'm going to speak about in my six minutes i'm going to start off by talking bout we get too deep into that didn't a district court say that whether or not he was a career offender she give the same sentence statute robbery can be committed by three different ways the first that first you need to be committing a theft and one of three other actions the first action is an assault in i wonder salk be committed in various different ways including offensive or insulting touch in state b spears three twelve north west second seventy nine mr spears reached into the pocket of  a bartender and stole the bartenders wallet in the supreme court determined that that was an offensive touching and as a result was a robbery well under johnson we know that the amount of force required to be a crime of violence is the amount of force that's capable of causing physical pain or injury and under those circumstances certainly reaching into the apron of a bartender another in fear of maybe a serious injury now first blush that sounds bad obviously but in the supreme court and speak be heard determined that mr hurd put a paper bag on his head and  exact same sentence so this is a harmless error case and for the reasons that are cited in our brief even if it were a harmless error case the defendant was in fact a career offender because the bank robbery itself was a crime of violence and the defendant had an armed case are you familiar with the supreme court case that mr golden spot soft sided generally speaking yes your honor i didn't review it in preparation for this but i think it has any impact on our harmless error cases i do not your honor i think  it's it might be a situation where if the district court totally didn't understand or didn't know what the guideline range was or or didn't make a an explicit statement tied to even if that case if that range is wrong then i would i would have known then that might be a different situation but that's not what we have here and we have this clearly within the bounds of circuit law that i don't think has been modified by the supreme court now with respect to the reasonable suspicion argument i would agree with the the questioning or the statements by by the court that with respect to the reasonable suspicion the officer here plainly had specific articulable facts that he  believe the records show that they actually stopped the vehicle about five point eight miles away from the bank and at about eight seven eight minutes after the bank robbery happened that's exactly as long as it would take they're still the vehicle was bearing in the correct direction it was met the exact description provided by the individuals on the phone and it was in exactly the right location so those are specific articulable facts that the deputy was very reasonable in relying on stopping that vehicle the witness identifying with the driver would be a male or female i don't believe so your honor i believe the the description of the initial description was two individuals one of  distinguishing features of the vehicle of the color and make a model there was that was the initial tip there was an initial or there was some supplemental information because the the witnesses in this case they weren't at the bank they were nearby they a important fact here that it was suspicious enough that random passers by found that to be a suspicious act that they followed then they followed that vehicle and and continued on with that and provided that information to the bank and law enforcement attempt to because they believe that there was something going on here and it turned out that they were correct so the additional information that was provided though included the license plate or partial license plate number turns out they got it incorrect and i believe the deputy testified at the at the hearing that he didn't remember what they said that the license plate was law enforcement generally did have that information and you can hear it over the over the radio on the video that the  license plate i believe it's they said he x y was the first it turned out that the license plate of this vehicle was d x y and so even though deputy you were did not specifically recall what the dispatcher said the license plate was the knew that and presumably the other officers who heard and responded also knew that so that was an additional fact i think law enforcement generally and i think we do look at the collective knowledge of law enforcement in this situation because it was a group effort we're talking the eight minutes after a bank robber bre the information that was gathered was imprecise but it was precise enough for the officers to target this vehicle take a look at it and start to finish we're talking about three and a half minute stop brief discussion with the with the driver the deputy sort of decides well i'm going to let it go he gets asked to well ask for a little bit more get a little bit more information he gets a little bit more information other deputies arrived at the scene he thinks well maybe we should let it go again and i drive or have left what's not that the driver have left after the office has this well ok thank you i don't believe so i actually at one point she started to drive away so ye simply by deputy yours his it's at the scene understanding he had imperfect information he didn't even remember actually that that the license plate of come out collectively law enforcement  the other deputies who were responding the dispatch they all had the information that justified a much longer stop than just the mere seconds that the first stop was it turned out the deputy u s initial instinct was incorrect about the car but that did not mean that reasonable suspicion suspicion did not still exist for this vehicle or that that investigation couldn't continue into the remaining parts of the vehicle where another occupant could be hiding and so whether there are one stop or two stops we still have the situation where this vehicle is appropriately targeted and law enforcement was able to under the fourth amendment reasonably take a reasonable amount of time to dispel the suspicion that the vehicle itself was involved in that was or was not involved in that crime that they were investigating and here three and a half minutes just does not exceed that scope it's it's frankly when you look at what the law enforcement did here they were diligently working to try to find the bank robber that's what deputy your was doing he he had a and i saw where he thought oh maybe this isn't the maybe this isn't the car we gotta let this one go and find the real one still he was not attempting to delay this traffic stop make it take longer go on some generalized fishing expedition all of the officers there were diligently attempting to find to figure out whether this was the vehicle they wanted to find the correct vehicle and then they wanted to investigate that federally and that's ultimately what they did and in three and a half minutes they found mr mosley mr modern in the trunk that's not an unreasonable time amount of time for a bank robbery investigation for a   we've mentioned in our brief this is this is actually a quite good tip when in the grand scheme of things and i think it's very similar to the tip that came up in the roberts case that cited in our brief the tip was  specific and actually in this case we had an individual who provided their name and phone number to law enforcement and there's no apparent motive to fabricate or anything like that on the on the part of the individual who called in this is just a citizen from the community who saw this event happened was attempting to provide relevant information to the police the deputy you were wasn't in a position at that point to start cross examining the individual through the phone or through the the dispatch they had a limited amount of information we're talking about a bank robbery it's a very serious crime and so they took three and a half minutes to to do this and all of everything beyond that was was reasonable at that point based on the information that they had i will also like to touch on  specifically she had voluntarily consented to opening the trunk and so there's the standing issue or the reasonable expectation of privacy issue that we raised in our brief in that the district court found that the two individuals had no in the trunk had no reasonable amendment challenge but even if they did have standing as peal consented the deputy said would you pop the trunk or could you pop the trunk i believe is what the district court ultimately found and she did so she wasn't threatened it was all within the context of a three and a half minute stop and it was a request she complied and the individuals were found so we believe that that threat or that that consent excuse me was it was voluntary as found by the district court there are no other questions from the panel i will relying on the government's brief  i want to start off by pushing back on the idea that the facts were precise that provided the next tip there was information about a car the make and model of a car but there were not profound precise facts to support that that car was involved in criminal activity and that's that's really what this case hinges on what all we have here is the informant at least at the witness thought that karr was involved in the in the isn't that what was communicated to the officer that was the witness had a hunch that that car was involved in the robbery and that's insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion or a hunch yes no he didn't not that's my character explanation of what he was why do you characterize it as a hunch because all this informant saw was two men fleeing the scene of the bank fleeing a bank they were certain at that time that a robbery occurred but they believe that it had been called the bank to confirm that and then go around the block and then they just see a car and they think maybe those cars involved there's nothing the car is not fleeing they don't see the two men in the car it's just a hunch it's an idea this car is here in the area we think this means something but looking at the circuit case has gone this far to find something like that to be reasonable suspicion like i stated the tipsters usually see criminal activity itself the car is filling the closest case i think would be the daniel where that in that case with tipster saw the two cars near the scene of the robbery and there was suspicious activity and that they did a u turn people are getting out of one car and getting into another car and then a car is abandoned that's much different than we had here and just that this gray ford taurus happened to be in the area that's not enough to provide reasonable suspicion and also the timing of the stopped an occupation that the fact that it was a short investigation because of rodriguez and the idea is result suspicion no longer exists so we don't have this dominionist well we can still it's just one more question as just and of course our position is that it was not a question but it's just one more step to see if there's someone in the truck but that's irrelevant because they no longer have of course our position is that they didn't in the first place but as the stop went on they did not have reasonable suspicion to continue to go on this