thank you and it please the court on december sixth of two thousand and twelve trooper edgeley with the idaho state police conducted what amounted to a pretext will stop of mr hoffman's vehicle to carry out what was a general criminal investigation that the idaho state police was carrying with respect to iraq as it is in jefferson in pocatello idaho known as seven ten jefferson now during that stop actually departed from the normal traffic mission to carry out a task unrelated to traffic missions and those were calls for a drug dog sniff and checks for the probation and prior criminal or prior drug convictions of both mr hoffman and his passenger and these are both of these tasks under the rodriguez and evans authority are task that are not related to the traffic mission in this instance and if so they in the back up and after that trooper actually also conducted a terry frisk which grossly exceeded the bounds that are permitted under the dickerson and this court's i evy decisions tell you is that as i understand it the judge the district judge did not have the benefit of rodriguez and evans is that correct so he was proceeding just in the state of the law at that time in the state of the law at that time was largely based upon the illinois risk ballers decision or which a lot of the decisions that had come out of that time looked know you can zero in on what you think is important but i just want to make sure i understand everything properly they understand judge lodges order he he does know the circumstances of the other officer monitoring the house right yes but he acknowledges the phone call to officer edgeley to make a stop if he could find if there was a traffic violation or something that being the traffic violations that were independently observed by or not can tell me let me ask you this the information that the officer at the house provided to edgeley did that provide a reasonable basis to stop no one to the only information they had at that time was that mr hoffman had been observed at this house they don't know what mr hoffman had done and saw you say they are on the information they independently possess but at that point all that law enforcement knew was seven ten jefferson had been reported as being a suspected drug in there a couple of months before a drug buy there was a controlled that had been carried out by idaho state police according to sergeant kemp and there had been several stops of individuals who had been like mr just like say the postman he had been observed at the front door is that sufficient so reasonable suspicion that hoffman conducted a drug but reason suspicion for the traffic stop i didn't quite hear those reasonable suspicion that for the traffic stop but not for the drug activity by hoffman there's no dispute that there is reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop i would dispute that they had independent reasonable suspicion to detain mr hoffman based upon his observation at seven ten jefferson standing alone had they not observed traffic violation and the pro there  ion of the of the stop itself on the rodriguez as you knowledge from judge prizes question wasn't really fully analyzed in light of the rodriguez decision so what w you suggest we have enough here in this record to decide it will remain or if we decide to reverse it render or should we remain well i believe based on the record that's before the court this court does have  from to carry out these tasking related to traffic missions such as for drug dog sniffing and the search of a drug well he i understand when he first the first when he called for the dog it was when he was doing his check right well his records check so he also called for a dog so why why why was any prolongation he just called for the dog to call for the dog because well like you do multiple things you this call for the dog wait for it to come back you're still going to have to wait for the information to come back on the record but the record below that knowledge is that almost immediately when he gets his car he calls the drug  both of these cost take a minute now what he didn't do is call and warrants jacket driver's license records check and had he done so and he was waiting for the those calls or those checks become back and he had this this free time then yes so what was the order how do we know that he didn't do that well they're finding by judge lodge that he didn't he didn't make the call first there is not finding on that matter well that might be significant right i have a question for you the part of your side of the case that concern me that is there's clearly cause for the stop because of the traffic violation and i will i think i watched the video from the dash cam and once the officer  for the police to start to question him then they probably had cause to go further the question in my mind was did they have the ability to ask him any questions during a traffic stop yes you have the ability your law enforcement has the ability to ask questions that can't those questions though can't be general criminal and that's what you know just to follow up on judge goals question you know even though that this stuff for one purpose during the course of the stop of things occur reasonable suspicion might arise at that point you know later on in the investigation so during the investigation when he's acting a little nervous and whatnot as they say in the record did that provide reasonable suspicion to go beyond the basic traffic stop all nervous behavior stand you know alone is insufficient to give  law enforcement reasonable suspicion to care about the movement of his hands i think the the movement your hands you're referring to occurred very later in the stop when he gets out minutes later when he's asked to exit and that would not give the officer reasonable suspicion to carry out these tasks unrelated to traffic commission because those occurred very early in the traffic stop you have to look at what had happened prior to those pro organizations and i see my something that they suspect to be simply a weapon and that's when the search ends everything the cases the allowed that type of carry frisk when the officer suspects some criminality in the conducting of the first and shouldn't  give some deference in that regard if it's reasonable i mean even even cases where something soft was was felt for instance well but the officer would have to reason we suspect that it could possibly be a that he recently suspected that anything that he physically detected in mr hoffman's pockets could possibly be a weapon and that was something that you would need to be on the record to justified that further intrusive manipulation of his pockets and counsel your time is up but we would took it up with our questions will give you an extra two the court counsel my name's might feel i'm an assistant united states attorney in idaho i was also the prosecutor initially in this case who charge the case in argued the case on and the suppression motion court has inquired with my colleague there are really two issues here for the court's determination and like to address both in turn one is whether there was whether the district court was correct in finding a continuation of the sto paragraph of page five with the district court says and i quote the court finds additional questioning by trooper edgeways after informing hofmann he was not going to give him a ticket was relevant to the officer determining his suspicion of ongoing criminal drug activity which is exactly what rodriguez suggests the officer needs to do what was what was the the the case at this point at this moment in time are are these he had seen again officers i know you know he does make found this kind of interesting because he does make reference to what was happening at the house and the information that edgeley got the tips about what was going on at the house and to stop angele but find some independent traffic violation to do it don't rely on this but the judge makes no to that letter and i was reading and i thought  conclude that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop based upon the information that edgel the camp provided him comfort provided but instead the judge finds reasonable suspicion based upon the traffic stop for the initial stop but it seems like judge judged law which was sort of taking all of that into consideration and quite frankly i think your honor that judge large was on track essentially he was doing the robbery guess analysis without of rodriguez he'd he had he founded that the initial stop was justified based on the traffic violation but then he goes on in his decision to point out and i'd like to point out the facts and then his final sentence here he goes on to the notes makes factual findings that they have to jefferson address where there was known drug activity in the past where as sergeant can justify hofmann's behavior in going in staying for ten minutes and coming out were suspicious but beyond that he notes that at the initial contact with mr hoffman where even if you were to set the jeffersons facts aside the jefferson house fax aside at the initial contact with mr hofman mr hoffman's or dress up in idaho falls which is wholly appropriate given the routine traffic stop at this point that the district finds were in tears and mr hoffman says i don't know my address i can't remember my address we said he was moving right  suspect drug activity although i think further investigation i think your honor he was he left totality of the circumstances at that point for reasonable suspicion  location for only ten minutes late at night leaving that location he was a vase of in his answers instead of saying where he had come from his answer well i would be his response i don't find his response so ridiculous that not in and of itself but even in the totality of the circumstances coupled with the fact that he's driving another another person's car coupled with the fact that he can't give his address tonight a whole fos coupled with the a fact that he's a bit of a stiff so household with the fact all these facts and the court recognized all these factors in the time that it took to say do the records check or what have you at what point to the check on the say the ownership of the core issue that was at the timing was that he called in the records check on the two individuals in the car he also called to check the registration on the car it was during that inter as at that time calling for the canine to call for the canine dogs and he'd been told that the there were no canine dogs are available even before the initial check of the driver passenger and the act was going on that he kept with an additional period of time right another what ten minutes or so back but at that point your honor a couple things have now happened one is he's warned that the passenger is why clee on probation and whitely in violation of what is of age likely well he hadn't confirmed that with the probation office but the initial indication from dispatch was that the passenger was on probation and that's in violation of his probation so at that point when the return comes back he's got even more information he knows the passion passengers on probation and likely in violation of his motivation and he's yet to follow up on the use that fact in analyzing the  period of time you he did your honor and his decision he was already made where did you make a separate determination that there was reasonable suspicion at that time to continue on your honor at the end of the decision to point your honor at page four with regard to the first paragraph where he's analyzing additional questioning by trooper edge with the district court and i quote has the court agrees with the government to trooper  approach to the vehicle and continued questioning of hoffman in the passenger was proper invested investigatory questioning in response to the observed traffic violations information from camp and then the dispatch report on the passenger because rodriguez i can see some ways to distinguish that because they're the the traffic stop was totally done and then they called for the that given the factors that came into play there was a caution code by mr hoffman mr hofmann was becoming more agitated troubridge he testified that he kept putting his hands down where he couldn't see him he'd asked mr hoffman to exit the vehicle when he did mr hofmann became even more agitated trooper and asked him if i could pat you down then mr often becomes aggressive moves his example that coupled with his behavior for example at one point and i think this goes to the second factor and your time's expired may i just conclude on this point and then make one final point as to the pat down and we'll give you two minutes extra because we're given the to your distinguished opponent thank you your honor even as he pats him down on the outer surface he asks on several occasions he feels something any asks mr hof and what is that mr hoffman itself aggressive it's probably a strong term but it's still we can go with hostile certainly beyond that of somebody who's seen it in contrast you'll note earlier in the tape he asked mr as chief make no bones about the fact that the officers were looking at the larger question of whether or not really looking for drugs and i didn't deny that it's a district court at the suppression hearing if you look at the record expression i acknowledge in conceded that right out of the chute if i can make one final point with regard to the pattern i would know this your honor the drugs at any evidence seized and i just think this is one final fact that the court can consider any evidence seized as a result of the pat down was way up and asked what it is and at that point that mr hoffman fleet's so with regard to the methamphetamine that was used that evidence at trial that was never taken out of his pocket and till he had fled hoffman's conduct as hostile i would submit that his conduct was that of a frustrated person we have mr hoffman who was pulled over two minutes into the stop is told by the trooper edgeley i'm not going to cite you i'm to release you fast forward sixteen minutes later after he's been told that he's asked to exit his car and stand in this parking lot and submit to his intrusive terry for asking questioning questioning so i think it's entirely understandable that someone that had been told sixty minutes earlier that you're going to be cited are not going to be cited released for this traffic stop that would someone in that position would be frustrated why am i still here why am i being detained why am i being subject to these repeated questions about what's in my pockets why am i being questioned about where i live i'd be frustrating the opposition but wouldn't he still be  i guess a general expectation to comply with the officer's instructions hundred percent but i would also note in this court's decision i v that the court noted the fact that the officer had already completed a large portion of his investigation of the vehicle without facing any threatening behavior undermines the well settled purpose of the terry stop which is to allow the officer to prison pursue his investigation without fear and that's exactly what happened here this investigation your client wins right now but what would be wrong with saying it back to the just record to to look at evans and rodriguez and give us his analysis in light of that law i don't i don't believe that that would be a wrong outcome or inappropriate but i believe that there's also the independent argument that under the that this terry for his deceit is the scope under the pseudonym rule that that everything should be suppressed as a matter what do you do how do you respond to counsel's argument that that they when they felt on this chest of object and he asked what it was and then he splits and that's where the math was in that little container on his chest they then discovered the mess afterwards after he runs well but the price to run exclusionary rule is designed to  so what was found as a result of that unlawful frisk should be suppress also must say we we thank you both for your travel to our court house