fundamentally focus on the mission of the stock he wasn't doing was this my understanding the record is that he wasn't performing these computers checks he hadn't radioed in to dispatch he was writing the book and if he wasn't doing any of those things that what in the world was he doing he certainly wasn't doing anything that had anything to do with investigating the traffic incident or writing jose ticket here the things that he was doing was was was prolonging the stop and i and what i would also respectfully point is there the question is not what could a theoretical officer have done in a theoretical period of time the focused on that what what the officer did and what the officer didn't do as opposed to hers is where we have what a hypothetical officer could have done in a hypothetical says so that really the point comes in i think you know where he's talking about these the the officers diligence it's not some measured on some inhumane mechanical efficiency it's measured in humans efficiency a reasonable officer is just as she would say with that goes to it and this really testified to there was absolutely drug interdiction activity happening and i believe that you know we don't we can't read the trooper's mind perhaps he had some alternative reason for bringing him back there i'm not certain what that is it wasn't put into evidence why he did it in the court at the trial and never question that fact and so we don't know what his reason is assuming argue endo he was doing it for drug interdiction purposes it didn't reasonably prolong the stop and in the slightest because he still had to go back to his own vehicle and begin running he testified he took the warning ticket out of the metal box and that's actually you don't see him physically doing that in the video but there was clearly enough time for him to have done that said the morning box in the back then he stated he began looking at the rental agreement he began looking at the licenses any input name was on the runway agreement he didn't ask any follow up questions he wants trade back to the squad car and spent twenty five minutes on customer service with hertz to figure out what this guy did and to see this court nearer their holding they specifically said that this was as to whether that act was related to the speed charge and it clearly was and it clearly on reasonably prolong the stop in this case the rental agreement was a quick check because number one it's got the insurance information herring it's a tire situation because he was performing the mission related task a license check the warrant check and a criminal history check one of the very st things he did was in put that license information into the computer he said when he has them in his hand that's when he does as an officer in a questioning back and forth with the offender in the video he's asking defendant about his residence or where he lives in riverside california so it's clear very early on he's not by the rental agreement he's in put the license in from asia and the any other proceeding event triggers a new situation where he's got a suspended license or he is wanted for arrest somewhere else that issues moot and so even if he hadn't started the written warning the fact that he already started these other tests and the fact that no return had come writing want to take it because he moved those items he specifically testified that he removed the written warning out of it you could hear paper shuffling when he's reviewing the license is reviewing the rental agreement in the video so he is performing these tasks during that interview the fact that process delayed anything when did you never call for the dog and i think that's one of the most important factors here we talk about stalling for time how can you try to impute it as defense counsel is done in this argument he a vehicle and then return and ran a canine around i think it was about seven minutes and eight seconds when the canine alerted and the important thing to consider is the fact that this is exceedingly short amount of time for as he said it takes about five minutes to fill in a written warning he says average traffic stop to his average traffic stop one thousand two hundred and fourteen minutes which is a pretty reasonable amount of time if you look at the written warning that something like eighteen bucks is a need to be checked or filled in with information and the officers testif we have to do this carefully and activity even indicated that he started right the wrong license number one want to have stretch it out and start over we can brace these officers through the missions the stuff because it's only going to lead them to to put themselves at what i think the courts don't consider it differently for purposes of this analysis what the legal effect of a warning is isn't really what's at the heart of this matter at the heart of this matter was a warning citation is essentially a citation like anything else and a certain amount of time is required to complete that citation is just not an issue in this case and i think you know one of the one of the main points that you've all talked about is that there's there's not much possible way he could have been faster in proceeding through this stop  risk respect but i think rodriguez stands for the fact that because that's a reasonable suspicion if you've got that you don't need a for years and have a for years is is lawful because it doesn't reveal the presence of anything anyone has a right to possess you can run a few years in if precisely because you don't have a reasonable suspicion or probable cause what rodriguez is saying in my reading of that case is we're likely to do this but you've got to be reasonable about it that's the whole point of this diligence test it's not saying every delay is unreasonable or unlawful it has to be reasonable to way in order to be unlawful and here we simply don't have it is not a case where we've got somebody waiting for five minutes on the side of the road with nothing happening in the tween arizona b johnson because those that those questions really did not measurably extend stop because the whole time stuff going on we have to remember the computer has not returned a result so that defendants here until their computer returns a result of those licens i have to agree but i don't i don't i don't think did i really don't know the answer that question i think you also would be you would be right to ask whether he could refuse or not i don't think you can lawfully refused to follow the officers request whether hope i know your arms around this i just want to call a person in mind to directly from rodriguez the reasonableness of a seizure depends on what the police in fact do if an officer can't complete traffic based inquiries expeditious video we can see the sugar through and didn't bring it home until after friends here are now this business of what to pursue he may or may not have been doing on the computer i don't know we can't see the front of the computer screen from the video so we don't know exactly what it was that he was oh how long it would have taken him under this particular set of circumstances in this particular situation because he wasn't doing as well let's take it based stuff is more than pen and paper yes of argument that he was punching ticket related stuff in his computer instead of putting up with jose and talking about where he was in what he's deluded where he was going and who was a passenger was