encounter under rodriguez versus united states the supreme court drew a line in the sand if the police measurably prolong its traffic stop or detention beyond the time reasonably required to complete it they violate the th amendment and that's what happen where the trouble with a long line in the sand and the same using the word measurably being compatible because measurably implies that there is room to consider what was appropriate and what wasn't the length of time here amounted to what or seconds right four seconds and are you telling us that that would be impermissible under rodrigues i am and here's why your  i think we have to remember that the per se status is that any interference seizure of any kind by law enforcement is barred by the th amendment unless there's an exception to the work requirement so we don't start from a premise and the court could have said well look at the overall context and decide if the delay was reasonable in the whole context of the stop and this court said interpreted in land or us united states  that that was squarely rejected by the court in rodriguez in fact that's exactly what i think justice thomas said in his heart ultimately held was if i understood it not that the four seconds didn't matter if they  actually done with the project but that they weren't done with the project because this particular project or this particular situation was not untypical traffic stop in fact they had stopped him for a traffic violation  there was an accident and they were investigating the accident and he essentially they needed to make arrangements for this car because he didn't have a driver's license and this was part of making arrangements for the car  that it wasn't extra so what about that your honor with respect i think that the court erred in this in the sense by saying that essentially there was safety risks that went along with this accident investigation and leaving the current school grounds well their safety concerns in any traffic stop and yet those did not justify and even judge will said in the context of an ordinary traffic stop there's no more danger i don't know when you're in traffic stop when the traffic stop is over the person's go nonconsensual encounter nobody disagree that it was a seizure still by virtue of the fact that had mr haskell tried to leave you would have been stopped by virtue of the state law require and not being allowed to leave the accident scene but also the police were leaving they had decided there wasn't so seeing how that changes the equation when the facts of the case where the we were they were on school grounds but it was on a friday on a snowy four thirty pm there was no evidence that there were children around or any other passers by police had no way of knowing how long that car was going to be left there this guy couldn't come back and pick up the carcass you know driver's license so he had to get somebody else to pick up the car and it's snowing he don't have any idea how long that car is going to be left parked in a school parking lot and you don't think it was reasonable for the officer under those conditions not that the guy didn't you know had a missing pillow light or something but that he's leaving his car in a school parking lot on attended to who knows how long but they were the ones who told him to leave it there and if it was that dangerous why and why put that why put it at that place and that's what they're trying to find out was it dangerous well i guess the burden i think is on the government to show and the no findings that there was any actual danger there was no evidence presented and again the facts before the court sort of belie the argument that there were safety concerns for thirty on a friday with no evidence the children or anybody else was around and no indication nobody asked they didn't say hey mr haskell how is he going to take it to get somebody to come pick this up or if it was that dangerous you know what let's just get a tow truck and you know take it downtown to the impound lot they could have done those things they chose not to and i think the fact that they didn't do those things claim that they were terribly concerned for the safety of the community and in that situation the facts simply there were no way to me really and part of this that's a question tom you have a question and that is the fact that they ran a felony ch while they were waiting i seem to raise you haven't checked it you haven't questioned it is because because the evans case essentially says you can't do that if that's taking any extra time the problem is it doesn't seem to have taken any extra time because they were meanwhile in dealing with concern look into the person's background which of it evan says you can't do it would be more of a salient inquiry than ask or you know be worried about leaving it at the school grounds when there's no evidence that there's a danger in that situation  there's a you know some sort of rash of children breaking into unintended cars in that parking lot or even generally speaking whereas in maryland versus wilson there were actual statistics about danger real danger to police officers in the context of actual traffic stops their statistics cited by the supreme court and yet that we don't just allow things like you know in every traffic stop hey do you mind if i search your car so i think of the facts of this case it was just simply not related to the overall mission of making sure the car was safely picked up your money where did things leave off in terms of the conversation between your client and the officers about how the car was going to be you know somebody was going to come and get it i honestly i don't remember if there was any real questioning about that by the officers but i say you know the reason i'm asking is because it sounded like you were conceding when you were speaking with shippers on that there was at least the prospect that the car would be left and attended for some amount of time and is that a fair statement of what the record shows i think that i don't know if i'm conceding that i'm conceding the fact that we didn't know that's true i don't think there's clear evidence in the record evidence of criminal wrongdoing the officers would have asked you know or again said you know we're worried about this situation we don't want you to leave it on the school parking grounds we're going to get a toad truck in fact we're under arrest if you know for having a suspended driver's license they could have done all of those things they chose not to and then i think the fact that they didn't do that i have no idea when you consider arrest somebody for having to spend your driver's license and the government in its brief in the district court in its response to our motion cited law that that is in think i guess i would just say again under these particular facts without any specific evidence from the government whose burden it was to justify this warrantless search without those things under these circumstances it was preacher or your honour's may please the court my name is christian ask here and i represent the united states the district court cannot clearly erin finding that the officers question was reasonably related to their mission on that day and i agree that rodriguez is not a good fit i think the framework is helpful but the thing of the day this is much different than the trap a routine traffic stop and rodriguez or an evans for that matter  the officers mission went beyond simply issuing a citation and having the defendant go on his way i mean just because i'm curious it is see it is the role that you have to stay paid by an accident a seizure i mean you you're the neon traffic accident relay are you not because the police are going on our starting authority it's because there's that sort of civil duty to had to clear the accident scene and at the very least they had to remove the car from the middle of the access road and so they were additional objectives of the mission that had yet to occur and at the time the officer asked the four seconds of questions he had several duties that remained he required he had to prevent the defendant from driving away and he had ensure that vehicles moved out of the roadway can i ask you this because i just pretend that these are the facts of our case let's say that the dialogue between the officers and mr school is such that he says i've already called my wife take her to get here anything i should be worried about in your car i think in some regards that's that's a better case for the government because the mission is not going to end until that rd party arrives to pick up the car the officer has no obligation that point to drive away and take mr haskell's word for that summons on his way because he has to ensure that that is in fact true that a rd party is going to come and so he can wait those remaining five minutes until the rd party he can check that their party to see are they ballot license and then they can clear and say go on your way and that sort of like the th circuit case that the district court sided with targets there was fifteen to twenty minutes where the officer was waiting around for trying to find someone to pick up the vehicle and during that fifteen to twenty minutes after he had already given a warning for a traffic citation he asked for consensus searched the car on the th circuit found the mission was ongoing yeah no actually it didn't that was the mission and the th circuit never did that that's why i'm trying to change the facts a little bit i frankly don't agree with you that my hypothetical is better for the government i think it's actually far worse the only thing that's good for you here i think is that there's there wasn't clarity as to how long the car might have to sit there on school grounds when in theory at least some innocent person from the public could break into it and get their hands on a dangerous object well i'm glad the facts are better in this well i mean actually i'm not i actually i find this to be a somewhat troubling case because i don't that's why i was asking your your opponent here where things stood at the time the question was asked i guess i thought i i thought the record indicated that mr haskell had said i'm going to get somebody to come here i'm not going to leave this car on attended and in that set of facts or just what is the officer of interest in knowing whether you have something dangerous in your car the officer is not going to have any further interaction with the car and if the car is not going to be left unattended where in theory some some mischief could occur why does the officer care but i think the question was they were getting ready to move that car it had been decided i believe the defendant had asked if he could move and park the car and they're going to leave it for an indeterminate amount of time i believe that in the record the defendant stated that he was hopeful that he could call someone and and have them pick him up but by there was never any mention of someone's on their way so no one had any idea whether this was going to be left in the school parking lot for five minutes or for three days and so when he asked is there anything in the car need to be concerned about the officer knew that this car didn't belong to him this was another person's car are there valuables in the car that cannot be secured do the locks of the car work and at that point i think the district court does a good job of pointing out if he says yeah i mind if you look then the officer has the option he can say well maybe this isn't such a great idea to leave this car unattended in the school parking lot for an indetermin amount of time and at that point as was discussed in the earlier argument the officers could have done several different things they could have placed him under arrest for driving without privileges and impound of the car they could have said you know what if you don't want to search this car i'm going to call a tow truck and we're going to wait until the car gets towed and so i think when you look at the subjectively you know it to the extent that rodriguez applies it's trying to avoid questions that really have nothing to do with the stop that or an investigation into unrelated criminal matters and i know you don't look at the subject of intent of the officers but if this officer was really trying to conduct a separate investigation he would have arrested the defendant knowing that the car would have been impounded it's helpful to even get into that for you i think it's clear this was you know you wanted some basis for searching the guy's car and this is the one he landed on and maybe it's ok under rodriguez i don't know but but i think we have to look at it objectively with what he did and write it and the district court i believe was correct when it found that this was a reasonable decision one that quite frankly benefited mr haskell and benefited the officer i asked your opponent this but i don't understand why the felony search was part of the home reitman well that that was never raised but run the defendant's criminal history he was there addressing the citations and investigating the accident while somebody who is the nd officer officer hemmer who was there a i believe on page fifty three  testified that hammered advised him that mr haskell had a felony conviction and he assumed that mr or officer hammered had run that while he was doing the citations and that's perfectly fine under rodriguez rodriguez doesn't prevent unrelated non reasonable suspicion searches dog sniffs as long as it doesn't that time and so there was no evidence in the record that the x felon check or the criminal history run at any time because i want to thank my opponent for reminding the court about there was some as i recall i didn't want to state the record i think there was some mention by mr haskell that somebody could come and get the car but i think the failure to ask or wait by the police shows that the safety concern car they'd go right into the mine if i take a look and i think the ferret ask those questions shows that this was one of justice ginsburg's concerns this was aimed at detecting ordinary evidence of criminal wrongdoing and i think that  the fact that and i'd also just mention for the record there was no evidence that the impound if they had gotten the tow truck and impounded that the policy for the impound by this city would have permitted and inventory search under these circumstances