court were asked in this case that the court reversed in remand the district court's denial and part of the suppression motion filed by alex agogo in particular the denial of suppression of physical evidence there was obtained following a drug dog search of mr saul got his vehicle were also asking for district court reversed remand the district court's denial to the defendant of an opportunity to review drug dog field records from the dog that was used for the search and it's reliance on those records in its decision to deny the suppression there are really two points at which the trooper involved in the search we feel violated the fourth and the first is his escalation of an initial consensual encounter with a vehicle on the side of the road to a custodial setting and the second being the unreasonable extension of the time of that stop to facilitate getting a drug dog on scene allowing the dog to search they can take those in those in that order the tripper in this instance came point a vehicle beside the side of the road about two miles of the town of winner south dakota when he came up and came around and activate is amber lights and started up the vehicle he was approached by two of the three men by the vehicle who said we're ok we don't need help the trooper came up the flashlight looked in the back of the vehicle and saw another individual saw in the  backseat of the vehicle and also saw as he described it a hoodie sweatshirt it was laying over some electronics equipment that the one with the marijuana the hoodie had a marijuana leaf runner on it based on the trooper concluded that he had a reason typical suspicion those were the two criteria that he relied on in his testimony at suppression hearing that the folks said they didn't want help or didn't need help and that there was electronics in a hoodie based on that the trooper escalated that consensual encounter to extol young counter and he did so by demanding mr salgado those driver's license and asking for their questions i think it's important in this instance to recognize that the demand for a driver's license is qualitatively different in the s is not a vehicle stop this is not an instance where the trooper had followed the vehicle and sought committing some violation of law it is simply a vehicle on the side of the road by the troopers own admission violated no law was appropriate off the side of the road they had their flashers on there was not a problem with the vehicle but once those individual said we don't need a help the trooper essentially relied on the refusal of help the refusal have contact with law enforcement as a  license but you have one step earlier that's exactly right judge tell you that the district court concluded that about six minutes into the stop mr saga had identified that he didn't have a driver's license at that point the district court concluded it was a non consensual encounter there was no miranda and excluded all the statements made by mr saddam in the co defendants from that point forward we think it's just one click earlier particularly in light of fact that this is not based on a violation of law the initial encounter is truly just a consensual encounter and there's no basis for those individuals to be question for that point if you look at the at the timeline of events i think once that issues addressed that this was elevated to a non consensual encounter at that point the drug interdiction in the questions that the trooper did that extended that stop and the say taishan of mr salgado for no driver's license and the extension of time for the drug dogs start to somewhat intermingled because what the troopers doing really it just kind of blends into one if you look at the timeline at one forty go back and elaborate a little bit on why you think it's a seizure to ask if he has a driver's license because i think at that point  a reasonable person mr saugus position would not view themselves as free to reject help or leave the situation and it's complicated in somewhat because the vehicle at that point was not running and it was overheated but the trooper came and asked for id and had initially been told we don't need a help you don't need anything it becomes a seizure because at that point the trooper exercises control and dominion over the situation i think a reasonable person in that setting would not view themselves as able to refuse further interaction with trooper not able to refuse to interact and answer those questions and so we rely on florida versus bostic because in this articulable suspicion is it came up in these guys declined help i've never had anyone do that well that may be the case but that in itself is not an appropriate basis to then escalate further ask for driver's license and ask continues to ask that question others related to law enforcement that point it just is not a situation where someone on the side of the road would think they can decline for their interaction with the trooper and again i thought it suppose it was permissible  whether he had a driver's license do you think that he had a reason especially at that point then if the man did not have a license because he had a traffic violation i think once he's identified that cell gado doesn't have a driver's license sure he's got probable cause to go ahead and cite right but the key is whether he could ask about the license because if that was ok then he's got probable cause for a traffic violation again take him back to the car correct  but then i think step two is once he takes him back to the car he then extends that traffic stop to get the drug dog on scene if you if you look then at the videotape at about one forty six on the videotape one forty gado is by the officers admission detained for the no driver's license it's at that point that the district court concluded that it was a custodial setting and miranda was necessary and suppressed all the statements after that it's also at that point that the trooper makes the first inquiry about the availability of a police service dog and how far that is way again at that point the only grounds of reasonable are to cool suspicion to extend the detention that the trooper had was that these folks i don't need your help that there was this sweatshirt with some electronics equipment in the back of the marijuana sure but even the trooper had acknowledged that in and of itself that's nothing other than a sweatshirt the bat doesn't a sword provide an article suspicion the only thing that's it's one of several factors and you were just omitting the sweatshirt at the marijuana leaf to make sure those are the record it's on it but i didn't from the record have the perception that the trooper relied on that as a basis in the district court certainly didn't exclude that out the only thing that in your view permissible for the where this officer to ask questions of the of these of these of the driver of these people such as you know where you were are you going what's the what's the problem here where have you been that kind of thing he i guess that gets back to the point of of when judge sheppard i think at the outset the case that we rely on there is the u s view jefferson case that at th the trooper pulls over drivers and that's ok officer we don't need any help isn't the isn't the officer permitted to ask and general questions about when you say you don't need help what's going on here where you're headed and how long you'll be in here those kinds of things i would say no and we would looking back at jefferson is  says can we have a driver's license was a rented vehicle can i see the rental agreement takes him back to the car the panel in that case didn't address whether those initial questions were in fact a seizure because  concluded that well by the time he brings them back and asked for the rental agreement that absolutely is a seizure was enough to go way back i just think that it does go back to the earlier point that's really all that case came in saying four days in that that  purchase go ahead i think here again two factors are so critical in assessing this the first is that what the officer encounters is a welfare situation not a law of violation and i think that changes the calculus of what inquiries are in fact reasonable that point and again when these folks have said we don't need any help for him then to move forward to what is really a law enforcement purpose on the id and the related questions changes the nature of that to a we've saying that it is not customary or typical or normal for vehicles to be parked on the side of the how away that's not the norm vehicles are traveling up and down the highway if they're parked on the caretaker kind of function and daily an obligation to make sure that everything is as it appears that the officer can make some reasonable inquiries to  include simply asking for the driver's license i think the critical component is you can ask some things but it's due to the questions you asked change the tenor of the so that the person believes reasonably believe that there are seats and i think the driver's license is such a critical role for purpose i think too for us it's critical remember we see this as one check point for the officer it's also if we assume that everything is fine up until the time that he asked for the driver's license and has probable cause to take salgado back to the patrol vehicle that thereafter his questions related to drug interdiction he asked a series of approximate one hundred background questions he asked for consent to search seventeen times and extends out that search in fact doesn't ask for any idea information other than the driver's license for about thirty minutes so as soon as the trooper took mr salgado back to the vehicle he immediately flips to a drug interdiction effort and he extends out that stop beyond purposes related to the traffic violation the no driver's license and turns it into a drug interdiction point though yes probable cause to arrest him so he does does he have an obligation to release him at the earliest possible time he cannot and reasonably extended your honor for purposes a reasonable suspicion case and a case where there's probable cause to arrest but in all of those your honor most of those cases are ones where there's the probable cause for the traffic violation but then there's also the question of how are you detaining or extending the duration of the detention to facilitate the drug dog and that's what point did he find out that salgado didn't know the name of the other passengers and that the name that saw god gave or at least that the officer understood him to give didn't show up in the database it's early on in the conversation around to be between one forty six and one forty one forty five fifty four so it's six to ten minutes and if you think those facts together with the matters because he had made the decision at one forty six to get the drug dog in and is extending the search thereafter but you know the one individual he had just met that day there's not a dispute about the other he said i know him a little bit was initially a consensual interaction up until the point at which the mr so gado had said that he did not have a valid driver's license and he had been driving the vehicle mr ford wrecked reference florida to be the free to continue on with outside the vehicle and tell the point at which he was asked back to address the driver's license issue so far is that your position that the district court was correct that it became non consensual when he failed to provide a driver's license not that the step before yes your honor yes your honor that that is our position and that by the time that he had mr snow got us that he did not have a license that he had developed reasonable suspicion at that point for other reasons in addition to the fact that he didn't have a driver's license when the trooper initially gets out of his vehicle and approaches  not just that they refused consent or excuse me excuse to assistance in this case even given that it was one forty in the morning girl two lane highway in the middle of south dakota it was it was the way in which they refused assistance the trooper testified that he got out of his vehicle and begins to approach them and they hurried back from the front of their vehicle and met him near the back back door of the driver side of the vehicle they hurried towards him to do that which he found odd and were repeating themselves that they didn't either help and that they were fine so it wasn't only the refusal but the ways in which they were refusing and the circumstances under which they were refusing and the t testified that in over his four years of experience this was this was odd to him and that normally people wanted some level of assistance now in addition to that when the trooper was standing next to the vehicle when they were speaking to him is when saw in the back seat of their vehicle the electronic equipment partially covered in the hoodie the had the marijuana leaf embroidered on it and those are all factors that the district court did rely on that there was reasonable did the trooper testify why the first question was which are where's your driver's license the trooper testified that that they routinely in these situations or when they're counting the public will seek to know the identity of people  for a couple different reasons one fifty of of themselves also to know if this is a person who has been reported missing or sometimes other cars will drive by and call in and say hey there's a car by the side of the road and then that way dispatch knows that you know a trooper already saw that person and has checked and verified that everything was ok did the trooper make any i think judge shepherd sort of rough referred to the concept that look the officer sees that the car on the side of the road needs needs to check up sort of an unusual circumstance what if anything did the trooper intend to do to make sure everybody it seems like safety would be one of those factors is there anything on the record that shows that that was also something that he was looking into other than just the identity of the driver yes i mean he testified that it was i have you know that they do that as part of safety reasons and that was one of the reasons for the you know the flashlight in the back seat is what's going on that the situation in kind of a general to make sure that they understand what's going on on the sideboard and that in fact everyone is ok it was in maybe even more big terms but he did reference that this was a safety issue for that is the flashlight through the car this is what he did that that's what i remember specifically but but he did reference that there is safety in policy reasons for making sure that they know who is there and that everything was ok so the those are the factors the district court relied on and as the situation progress continued to grow in that once they name one that he knew a few months and one that he met earlier that day the trooper is trying to identify him and talking to dispatch back and forth providing them information that mr seale gatos giving them an which is expired but from one forty three until one fifty eight he he doesn't provide it despite repeated requests to trooper trying to figure out who he is and then it's even after that that he provides is immigration card which allows  know to contact ice to see if they have some sort of record of him so even when mr snow got it was in the vehicle he spends from one forty three until two eighteen trying to figure out who this man is and all of that is for purposes ruled that that's that's permissible and in this case he didn't measurably extend the length of a traffic stop which which started at the point at which he said he didn't have a driver's license and then the time from two eighteen on until the drug dog arrived the troopers continued trying to i had done a fire the other passengers in the vehicle at this point he doesn't know if he has a valid driver for this vehicle which in the meantime is disabled  they're not able to go anywhere until the vehicle is recovered or has cooled down so it was it was reasonable for the trooper to to continue the detention in efforts to identify the driver and initial call about the drug detection dog around one forty six was not even a call out for a dog it was the trooper trying to figure out where the closest dog was and how far away was someone going to be at which point he continued to talk to m so gotto who did not give him consent to search the vehicle until after he had already called the second trooper to come with a drug dog so for those reasons that the wait for the dog did not the the the attention because nobody had been identified yet and in addition much of that delay was can be attributable to mr so in answering questions and in providing and in providing his identification he wasn't giving answers and he we had come to find  any efforts by the trooper to dispel any of his concerns were only heightened as his interaction with mister continued viewing camera was over both the objection of the defense and the united states and united states position was that these records are not relevant to the determination of whether or not the dog is reliable and then there is other evidence going to be presented and that i'm that was my first interaction with magistrate court having done that but i'm told from other trains that that the regular practice in the in the court did say that what's the reason the court thinks that these need to be x held x party and shown to the defense it's my recollection that the the magistrate indicated that he would view that it would be them and does determine whether or accuracy of this dog however it was only one of the factors that the magistrate court relied on in finding this dog reliable and the district court and in its findings regarding the  reliability of the dog and the accessibility of the records the district court reference the florida v harris decision and indicated that it could assume absent any conflicting information that the dog was reliable and provided sufficient probable cause to search based only on her successful completion of training and certification prior to the stop and that evidence was provided at the suppression hearing so that if there was any error in considering in the metric or considering those records and citing to the percentage accuracy rate that the court noted the district court noted that it got a reliable could find a reliable solely on the certification but what if the percentages had not been so high where would we be then and would they do you think that would be in the same position in terms of well we can still earn based on the certification process i think so training their deployment in that specific case in their certifications that referencing all of those other factors that the dog still can be sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search  in this case the dog had a very high accuracy rate but even if it had been there was it wouldn't have it would have been much lower than fifty four percent to have had an impact on the records here and i think i believe that's one of the things that maybe the magistrate court would have considered in in turning over the records i had while i'm still trying to stand why the magistrate thinks they should be held next parties or something confidential about these records does the government object to the defense seeing them i know the government says they're not relevant but is there something confidential about them that would interfere with law enforcement if defendants were able to see the reliability that that's not an argument that we presented below that there was any sort of identifying information or anything like that that would have on me that that there's there's no relevance to them in reaching a reliability determination and that is to start providing them that then they would always be expected to be provided and that hearings would turn into many trials of every deployment that the stock has had whether or not they were you know that there's an explanation for you know one instance where the dog didn't find you know where they didn't find drugs in the dog indicated the defense seek these records to put them on or did the court seek them  sought to have the government turn them over to i say oh i see so it was in that context the magistrate said no i'm not going to order you turn him over to the defense or you need to turn him over in camera yes yes that was that was the procedure lead ok so maybe the judge is thinking he'll look at them first and only if there is something that he thinks is material then he'll order them turned over to think that's it yes and in fact the magistrate court noted out when he issued his bench decision that he court will fall on opinion in due course