office this appeal centers around the extension and escalation of a traffic stop and nando mississippi following a police officer's mistake and immediately almost immediately dispelled believe the vehicle driven by mr corey smith of bore no license plate were tags which is a misdemeanor crime in mississippi where you're not been testing the stop you're not contesting the traffic crimes that officer has a discretion whether or not to arrest word of site or to issue a warning that's not present in this case so the i guess the scope of the investigation would be just that much less and the traffic stop occurred broccoli five fifty seven pm you probably don't need to go into facts you have multiple stages of th amendment right to have a stop which sounds like was a legitimate stop and then as i understood the facts undisputed the officer brings the driver your client back to see where the tag is affixed and at that point there is discussion with driver and passenger in their inconsistent stories and so i thought the issue before us was is there reasonable suspicion to extend this stop longer at which point crash the dog comes alerts and is probable cause to go in the vehicle i thought your focus was that nd moment the others no reasonable suspicion to deploy crashed solomon and mr smith and it sounds like he credited mr solomon are you saying that his findings that solomon believed they had inconsistent stories is clear error or are you making a legal argument i'm making a legal form that they extended t to you know why are you traveling north on on i fifty five to memphis and and asked the passengers and there were i mean conflict ing stories i mean did you agree with that there were conflicting stories given by the passenger about what they were doing  a party well you know there is yeah i mean there were a consistent story right so i mean doesn't that raise some suspicions for the officer when he hears that well before that but the identification insurance of mr smith were verified at six o four pm ok they knew we was the as far as the legitimacy of his tag the reason for the stop that was completed at six o four pm and at that point they would in the passengers now that  t mention from driver's license check with with an apostrophe s drivers i think that means the driver and his driver's license status is not anyone's driver's license or all the way from texas where he was in texas to indiana to pick up an ice maker instead of just having it shipped to you i mean it was just one suspicious comment after the next then he says will ease the to minimize car on no i'm well and they're going to go help me and we go and then the man said we only know this guy was going to memphis for a party i mean it's just rife with inconsistences so assuming or you window that they're worrying consistencies raise reasonable suspicion at that point where he has launched his narcotics investigation where there's really no explanation for what's occurring well he's running the background checks and he finds therefore drug warrants or something will be the testimony that came out on that topic was it that something that is radioed into dispatch and it's sort of a passive what's called in it sort of passive behavioral i'm just sit and wait for the result come in it's not that he's on a keyboard looking things up actively during that time i saying but but we have the background check on the passengers in my time in country tell me if this is wrong six ten pm officer solemn is informed that carol one of the passengers has you came up and then there was a sporting officer there who took him into custody and he was out of the picture ok point it was the arrest warrant had nothing to do with a chronic that was subject to investigation and as far as their backgrounds were concerned if you recall or only i think for a prior narcotics arrest in some dated back to the early eighty's when anything that stood out these were all adult men it was a tuesday  test of nor are to deal with authority figures and you know one of the difficulty here for me at least is if you don't file a reply brief it's not as clear to me what your central argument is i thought your argument wasn't what you seem to be conceding today which is that there were significant discrepancies that the two were found you're not pressing that those didn't give rise to reasonable suspicion you're arguing that prior to that there wasn't reasonable suspicion enough to allow him to question the various people anticipated investigative measures that are instant with simple trappings traffic stop running the driver's license and checking the registration checking the status of the insurance all those things were completed six hundred and four pm period at that point the investigation continued i thought he asked the driver do you want to see where the they got out of the cortical look where the  and i think that at six o four pm if we're looking at that particular wrinkle in time where reason and i think what is reasonable is evidence by the office of the very fact the officer had completed  particularly helpful to the court or encouraged well just cases where your information and the information for the students that are here i think is most helpful brief you fall but but going to my main question to you the issue you raised nd issue you raised in your brief is that the delay from six hundred and eleven the six hundred and twenty one for the dog search was unreasonable and i'm just not sure how you raise that at the evidence or in how did you preserve that issue so that we don't review it asking about the delay and in deploying the canine right yes that we have your pure arguments i understand it is well the dog is that they are you know it's not the normal case where we have to wait for the dog to arrive the dogs there but he's not deployed until six twenty one pm and the question is did you raise that delay as a reason to attack the stop or to to not to you know to unreasonably linked in the investigation did you raise that on the out and i'm confident i did because i don't i don't know if there's a distinction made between you know if you make the argument that the stop is as i understand it is it has to be brought to the attention of the district courts of the district court can consider it right and that's and that seems to be an important part of your argument that they should have deployed the dog earlier i raised it is really i've debated the whole how i've certainly address the point at which the dog sniff was concerned and argued that was unreal let's assume that you raised it of course that would affect our standard of review let's assume that you did what what is your argument that the ten traffic stop you mentioned during his testimony you did three reasons you approached the pastor side of the vehicle and there were two of the pastors in the vehicle size the driver sort of move smith in the vehicle one for officer safety two because it's easier to he about where he's going purpose of the trip which is certainly permissible under the presence of regular pack smith gives impact illogical and illogical answer as to where he's going he talks about driving from fort worth to indiana to pick up an ice machine is bought on craigslist he drives through jackson mississippi to get there which is not the most direct route he picks up two guys in jackson to help him on this trip which makes no sense that you would do that you would get someone he'll be loaded in indiana and somebody will be unloaded for work he wouldn't pick up in jackson he says these guys have done work for him which doesn't make sense because he lives in texas and they live in mississippi but then he doesn't know one of these guys and it's a quarter lou two earlier that certainly raises red flags in some in solomon's mind because he starts asking him questions then about such as why do you need three guys to lift a normal size ice machine and would it be cheaper to have a machine shipped to texas instead of paying for gas and lodging to  question so the red flags are going off that the story doesn't add up that being gives him the right to follow up and ask carter and carol passengers about the purpose and tenor of the trip and what he gets of course noted is significantly inconsistent statements we ought to put on no drug trafficking cord or because for example i drove up here on fifty five and so did my clerks yes and i'm fairly confident that i was not carrying the countrymen nor will my clerks so it concerns me that i mean so you know what we should we put on that fact it's a factor to consider certainly another self does not give rise reasons mission in fact many of the factors of course side and there's cases of talk about inconsistent statements talk about the location of where because a known drug traffic court or somebody come from mexico or miami or nervousness of the driver any of those factors in and of themselves do not rise to reasons fission it's the combination of factors that you can consider know the government's position is inconsistent statements alone couldn't give rise resource this it has to be coupled with i think you do i cannot find cases specifically say yes there's no way that inconsistent statements alone i can't find that case it's possible there's a case out there there's a good implied that our laws gotten clear it's not clear to me that it's gotten clear into other words it seems to depend on where the statements inconsistency significant yesterday and it's possible these passengers were actually saying you know we're going to party in memphis but they were never asked and then will you be heading up to indiana knows i believe they were asked about that believe that i could be wrong about this but i thought that also solomon had asked him what about indiana what about an ice maker and they said we know nothing about indiana or iceman well in today he's conceded that they were significant discrepancies that's what the just weren't found yet so we have a case where they're on interstate in the passage of the drivers have significant discrepancies in their stories so yes i guess your your argument is that fits in course of the traffic investigation of rhythm impacts a you can check the driver's license of the passengers and of course in a war comes up he has to deal that warrant they have to arrest him that put him in handcuffs put him in the suit explains the link but it doesn't add to the reasons bases car right after that though it's six hundred and twelve and fifty six seconds he request a criminal history of all three at this point he's only asked for driver's license changes like how is that that's different from the initial check on carol this yes there's more in depth could you explain that to us is understanding the initial check that you did was on the driver's license is it valid is this the real life of the fictitious on there any outstanding warrants a criminal history be it in sas the reports with more detail and if you look at page fifty six of the record at six eighteen pm he gets a positive criminal history and all three course we know already that carol has a criminal history who's got an arrest warrant but he finds out that mr smith also has criminal history and he finds out that there are passenger cars or has a criminal history that includes four prior drug arrests including two for possession with intent to sell so that's further reason suspicion on the narcotics investigation that leads and then after six but that still gives authority for the search from the standpoint that the drugs could be hidden so well the officers couldn't find him or the dogs know so much better than everybody else's maybe the drugs have been used up and he still smells were drugs were there he's running a criminal history on these individuals rather than simply deploying the cannot he's trying to develop more reasons because we don't necessarily want all searches deploying their canine at every stop or every time they st suspect drugs we want to point out under rodriguez the difference in rodriguez in this case is in rodriguez the finished explaining the warning ticket to the driver and given back the driver in the past with their documents and the officer and rodriguez testified at the hearing that the reason for the stop was completed that point then he asked for permission to walk the canine around the car and when the driver said no he went ahead and did it in that case it was clear the officer in his mind had completed the stop on the traffic issue and there was movement into a drug investigation the court in rodriguez held that without reasonable suspicion also must allow the driver to depart once the purpose of the stop is conducted in other words you can't prolong an otherwise completist to conduct a drug sniffing absent reasonable suspicion in our case we already have that reasonable suspicion before he completes the purpose of a traffic investigation he's developed a reasonable suspicion based on these significantly existing stores mr memes that go along the lines of my question in council about whether he preserve the you waited too long to do the canine snail his brief seems to focus more on on the fact that you shouldn't you should have done the pain and snow of the sooner you had the dog there you didn't have to wait on the dole how do you and in your brief you don't challenge that he failed reserve that in district on how do you consider that he properly preserve that issue and issue court your honor in fairness to opposing counsel he did in his brief the district court level he raised four grounds two of which were relevant here one was he said you did not have reasona he did raise that the district could or did he say specifically the problem with that is you have the dog there that's the point he he emphasizes as i recall from his briefing on appeal and again you don't challenge the back that he  charged raising it here at this level i'm not certain that he has i just said not for my own purposes i've not addressed that as an issue that on a more focused on what happened on the stop and i'll write the way of course determine our own standard of review but  case in my opinion is controlled by the case of brigham pact which talked about the fact that you can check the law says the driver you can check the licenses of the passengers you can ask the driver about the purpose of the trip you can check with the passengers to see  if the drivers tell the truth and you can ask all those questions investigating initial traffic stop the last thing i want to point out i don't take a lot of i don't usually look a lot appeals decided was not reason enough reasonable suspicion based on facts that case that involved a driver who were nervous the passenger appeared to be stone there or smell the body odor excessive food reps in the car and even the driver of the passenger fulcher had fleshed out the details concerning the trip better or she had developed some inconsistencies in their stories they may have had some support in establishing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that's exactly what we have in this case th significantly inconsistent story sieur coupled with the fact that as also testified when people lie to me off fifty five it's usually because they're hiding drugs or hiding or other contraband that apostrophe is part of the initial investigation officer may examine drivers apostrophe s licenses so i'm reading that i then pack states examining the driver's licenses is the inference you're trying to draw from that that there was and it was not permitted to question the passengers i don't think that i don't think robbery is end to suppose as far as the traffic mission stop is concerned examining passengers or other occupants says driver license driver's licenses it's  tongue twister but i think that it into space for the safety the traffic mission to stop checking the driver's license to see if it has a history of traffic infractions were outstanding warrants but how would the traffic function be advanced by to point out that the this this general area of the law is i think frustrating to many who encounter it because of the ability and  was so very you know that's what if that's all there was that agree with you and i mean there's there's other things too that are not subject to cross examination that you know always seem to find their way to these descriptions like nervousness i mean it's in listeners a real good dash cam video something it's really hard to say that someone didn't perceive something being nervous as far as horror tangible facts that are subject to judicial review or post  not that that is that is the truth there are but things like it's hard to tell someone without getting inside of the head which is difficult if they didn't see or smell or perceive something and then these abstract facts of which of the other category that is concerning i mean if you if you think enough about something you can come up with the logic of the type of vehicle that they were in on the vehicles painted a certain color indicative of a certain gang that traffics narcotics for for instance just you know if you think enough about it you can add these things in and i think it's subject to abuse in a rather think it really is determinant of you