completed and nd whether there was independent grounds for reasonable suspicion to support dog sniff of the vehicle i'm going to address the st issue st so officer kabul and reasonably prolonged stop after the initial purchase purposes of the stop are completed we're not contesting that the initial stop was valid but i want to kind of go back and just give some context about why the vehicle was stopped in the st place so vehicle he determines that there are no warrants and the vehicle is not stolen but he goes up to the window to further investigate some of these traffic violations potential traffic violation a couple of other facts you know particularly the video is actually a very vivid way of picturing what's going on it's hard i think just because of all the moving parts the different ways that the roadways  scene is not i don't think appropriate not it not that it's not appropriately described but a picture is worth a one thousand words and i think the video gives a really good kind of understanding of of what was going on  so once officer cottle has determined that the identity of the driver was not the driver that he saw that fled from him ninety of prior and once officer cogdill determined that the that mr ahmed had no that the vehicle was not stolen and the vehicle was purchased lawfully the purposes of the initial stop are completed and the stop should have ended at that point and i think the strongest case that i have on the opposition satisfied the reasons for the stop are reasonably explained by what he observes is and but while he's doing then he observed other suspicious conduct are you telling me that because the reasons for the stop have been resolved that the officer is unable to continue the stop if he's watching things that appear to him to be a crime  think so i want to be more specific so what specific things are you referring to the spray in the cologne the fact that he didn't show d temporary license plates  in the district court decision so you know all of them as well d as i do you should know him better than i i know what i'm talking about yes i want to separate out because i think that what you're referring to kind of goes to the nd issue which is whether there was to support the dog sniff independently of whether or no no if you're saying that the whole thing should have stopped once he was satisfied that this was not the driver that was previously you say everything has to stop then even though as he's resolving that he sees other specific specific or suspicious conduct so it does relate to this issue so you're so let me make sure i'm in understand your question your question is if an officer is observing other suspicious conduct during the course of the stop can he prolong the stop specifically for investigating those those driver's license to him and at that point were noise in the contemporaneously with the spraying of the cologne his observation that there was there there was no temporary plates on those and there were some other things so there's no real break i didn't see in the fact so in the video in the video if this is what i keep reiterating the video is i think the best kind of evidence that we have of what happened so officer cockle goes up to the window and that's when he observes the he says he observes the cologne and the with the window rolling up and down and then he actually goes back to his ok but that's at the same time he observes this is not the same person who  correct so it's a contemporaneous observation of the cologne and his satisfaction this is not the same person correct but then he goes back to his vehicle to do some additional investigation into i think the licensing in the registration of the vehicle so you know i don't i don't want to kind of speak in hypotheticals but perhaps if before he had returned to his vehicle if he had then started to question the passengers i think that would i think that would go more to your question but he's already returned to his vehicle he's investigating the the the vehicle issues and the other suspicious conduct i mean if he was that concerned about controlling the scene or investigating that other suspicious conduct i think that he probably should have continued to do that before he returned to his vehicle and there's no issue controlling the scene because up to that point nobody is trying to get out of the car that doesn't have to later  returns to the suspect vehicle so that's when the front passenger tries to get out of the car that's actually that's out of order so what happened is he's so the officer sorry mr ahmed pulls into this alleyway officer pulls in behind him the cars are both rolling alleyways actually quite well and so you see mr on it's car stop in front of the entrance to the office the police officers car is still rolling at the time that the back seat passenger st tries to get out of the car and then officer caudal exits the car and she tries to get out again she has her hands up ok so he's interacting with mr rahman for the st time getting the driver's license he then and that's i think when he observes the issue with the cone and you know the rolling up and down the window and then he returns to his car to do some additional checks and then goes back to the goes back to mr ahmed's window returns the driver's license and inspects the bill of sale and he determines that the vehicle was purchased lawfully and at that point that is the point at which he he then goes around the vehicle to to talk to the the passengers of the car so our position is that at that point the purposes of the initial stop which were to ascertain the identity of the driver and do vehicle checks had been concluded and the additional questioning of the passengers really extended impermissibly extend the scope of the stop when you turned it was in their reasonable suspicion of the violation how does that play into your argument that the district court did determine that there was a reasonable suspicion of the seatbelt violation our position is that there really was that that and the district court i didn't really make any factual to support that decision i can point you to the district court's decision she says i think it's a woman judge but the district court says that there were  facts in support of that but it's actually on page thirteen of the decision in page three hundred and eighty nine of the of the record it's really kind of a conclusory statement that the officer was investigating the seatbelt violation but if you if you actually look and see what happened the car is stopped for a good fifteen seconds before the officer can even see the front seat or the back seat passengers obviously there was plenty of time for someone to unbuckle a seat belt because one of the passengers exited the car not once but twice before the officer was even at the car where he could observe that seatbelt violation and furthermore there pulled up i mean it's a dark scene the the they're pulled up in front of the entrance to the motel the cop car is behind them it's kind of ambiguous as to whether the car the officers car is even there for them because they're both at the entrance  this motel right and so i mean there's a natural inference that when you're pulling up to your final destination the st thing you're going to do is take off your seatbelt and so our position is there was really no i mean the scene will fall into that clear clearly erroneous factual finding i think that our position is that there just weren't factual findings on that there was a conclusion but there was no real factual determination about that i mean i think that you could read the district  the video and the gist i keep going back to the video but it's clear from the video that these things happen in like a very short span of time with the exception of the the fact that the his car is stopped for a very long with short question let's assume that there was a seatbelt violation the side effect this case i think if i think that if there is absolutely a seatbelt violation that i think justifies the after the those issues had been resolved is what was unreasonable yes i think it's both i think that i have to i have to convince you of both in order to  it would make it so i think that if there if there is if there's a seatbelt violation then i do think that the officer has the authority to question and ticket that person but i think that the idea that there was even reasonable suspicion f asian on these facts is it just does not add up he did not took it and he didn't end up ticketing her for the seat belt violation because other things happened is it's is it or you corrected me about when there was this attempt to exit the vehicle but there were two attempts to exit the vehicle was a th yes they happen very close in time so there were two attempts there  was the st attempt was kind of as the car was as the officers car was rolling and she kind of pokes her head out and he says get back in and then he he walks to the car and she tries to do that again and says oh i live here  i think i think yes maybe in a different circumstance but i think that there later in the video you see the officer cogdill actually recognizes her as someone who lived in that complex or had  before or was sort of a frequent visitor and so i think in that context just knowing that this is potentially where she lived or she was trying to maybe go visit someone or something it doesn't it's not like a stop on the side of a highway where it would be very suspicious if someone was trying to go into the bushes it seems to me like that makes it even more suspicious because you fleeing than she can flee into the house and there are new th amendment problems then about whether or not they can enter and saying that might be suggestive of flight the district court says that might be subject to suggestive of light so reason that and that's a fact a factual finding i don't know that that's a factual finding i mean i think court has now made clear in its recent decision in her rule a which which when each aid officers are allowed to keep everyone in a car detained as long as the initial stop is valid and they have reasonable grounds to keep investigating someone in the car and the reason for this reasonable for officer coddle to continue to detain him and not ms toledo once the officer turned his attention to investigating the passenger ms toledo's true identity the nd independent ground upon which t court can affirm the district court that is that officer coddle had reasonable suspicion that everyone in the car including mr ahmed was engaged in criminal activity and because of that mr ahmed's continued detention as well as everybody the officer came up how long after or after he st saw that he actually come in well he sees the car on the road and then he follows follows it into the parking lot immediately gets out of his car and walks up to the driver side window and it is at that point that he testified that he saw that the passenger was not wearing her seat belt well the officer came up and  seat belts or something to that effect the two women that were there at that point protested that they had already removed their seat bills to exit the cork when they parked before officer within a couple within minutes why had they been called they were called because officer boggle had concerns about the stop he felt like he needed backup for his safety there were a number of other factors other than the seat belt and i can go to the nd round upon which this court can affirm the district court's decision which had nothing to do with four people for you to go on there are you saying that we should just discount the seatbelt issue claim as let's let's assume that the stop was valid as to her the continuation of the stop was valid as to her based on the seatbelt violation officer cogdill should have let me mr ahmed up but not the car and the car that's his claim that they officer should have let mr ahmed and the car go but our case law indicates that that if there are problems with passengers independent that the stop can continue correct was ask you about facts ms s are suggests that almost contemporaneously with the officer arriving at the side of the vehicle that the right front passenger drives to get out right there the initial car well the driver's car whatever were they at their destination i believe the back seat passenger says that she lives in that they thought they were at their destination before officer pulls up there to get their exit in to remain in the car up to my house my wife is getting out to go in the house is that properly characterized for our purposes as tries to get out well but there's more to what happened w to innocent conduct equal suspicion well i think i guess you're better off walking down the street acting suspicious because then you are innocent because now today's world i guess this innocent convict  well in this case she starts to get out of the car she is specifically told by the officer to remain in the car and then she and it's the nd time that she attempts to get out of the car again so at this point she's not just innocently leaving the car to go into her house she's been specifically told by a police officer to remain in the car and she tries to get out again and it's that if she's been told or stay in the car please and she then is going to get out of the car i think it's fair to say she tries to get ok so the nd time she tries to get out of the car but i'm not  to let it go in the seatbelt issue so immediately is the officer is beside the car the rear passenger tries to get out yes i believe  say that he observed the seatbelt violation both as to the front passenger in the rear passenger i believe it's just a front passenger ok not the rear passenger so no seatbelts have nothing to do with her no ok because he says it's the front seat passenger who has the seat belt violation which is why he then goes around turkey her and asked her who she is and that starts the inquiry into her  in the back all women yes there was i believe there's only one person in the back there's the driver mr ahmed there's a female passenger and then there's a female backseat passenger  decision is independent reasonable suspicion as to all the passengers in the car and those are the factors that we identified the fact that mr ahmed rolled the window up instead of down the cologne that the back seat is directed at the right front passenger yes or no she said i had taken my seat belt of of yes and then the district court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion that there was a seatbelt violation but did not ticket them well no because what happens is he goes to talk to her about the seatbelt violation and in order to write her ticket he needs to know who she is and he at that point becomes suspicious that she gives him a false name and so starts the inquiry into her identity yes yes and the entire amount of time this all takes is fifteen minutes so from the time that he initially stops the car to the time that the dog starts its is fifteen minutes cockle should have released ten if he only had suspicions as to the passenger because independently he had reasonable suspicion as to all the occupants of and all of the grounds upon which that reasonable suspicion was based have been recognized or most of them have been specifically recognized as by this court and other decisions as supporting reasonable suspicion and specifically addressing this drama its primary argument before this court at least in his briefing this claim that he should have been released even assuming the officers continued detention of ms toledo was reasonable that claim has been specifically rejected by this court most recently and it's