consensual now no one disputes the proposition that a police officer cannot hold long or extend a traffic stop that has already ended and that's precisely the situation that's presented here the officer detained the vehicle for speeding he approached the driver of change is documentation and on the passenger side because the hartman pulled over so the shoulder of the highway he reached in the hand of the driver his documentation into the driver's citation explained the procedures for paying the citation and he didn't answer the defendant's own questions to clarify those procedures officer we're not dealing with multiple officers that surrounded the car what we're dealing with is an officer that spoke in a polite respectful tone of voice he didn't make physical contact with the defendant he didn't brandish is weapon he didn't display his as he knew the any other official in reasonable motorist who's got all this documentation where the purpose of the stop has now been completed where his questions have been answered if you want to go there simply i suggest to you that if you tried to leave the officer would not have stopped him because he wasn't trying to further detain him and a rea well that's that's what i'm trying to argue for is that are up there with your well again two points to to make first is again we don't believe and i don't think i think that supports our position that the officer was leaning in in such a never issued the defendant a citation in fact what happened in that case was that the officer decided very early on that he wasn't going to issue a warning but the critical fact is he never told that to the defendant and the defendable standing outside his vehicle he had not been issue circumstances in this record there's at least a strong presumption given the fact that he has documentation back and that he certainly knew the stop was over he received the citation and that's the factual distinction that i would advance that i would suggest distinguish this case very clearly from shot as well as well and that's but the point i'd like to leave you with is that the one of the reasons the officer was position where he was is because the defendant himself reinitiated questioning it was the defendant himself i'm out of time but it was the full of himself who asked the questions and i think put the officer in a position to be there to answer those questions what look at the totality of the circumstances that is what judge read and did and judge read and found that no reasonable motorist under these circumstances would have felt free to terminate the encounter roll up the window and drive away now that the vendors for the underlying factual from an age and a factual determination in fear that no one no reasonable person under the circumstances will feel free to leave and the record here especially the videotape fully supports that find it i would first question that he asked about about the travel plans are questions that he had already asked he starts asking about without your coming from california you're going to be starting yeah come on that he changed you michel and you're visiting your wife so she's same line of questioning that he had used earlier it's only later that he starts asking is there anything in the car i should be concerned about are there weapons are there drugs questions that under chavez valves are clearly wrong i think the other thing is the court asked about the distinction with give back the documentation but right afterward he asked one question not right here where it goes back repeats really a question asked one question whether or not there were drugs in the car and that's what the court found was in permissible very points drawn or i think the parties are basically in agreement on the standard of review question i think the point of departure is that my opponent suggests that the no reasonable person determination is a factual finding i don't think that's the case the that's the ultimate legal case review the question of whether seizure had occurred at the no reasonable person that's really been a finding of fact the supreme court would not have authority to review that question and the one other point i want to make very briefly your honor this notion about the use of the high intensity  beam we don't dispute that the officers used to seen the videotape clearly shows a place as well as a procedural point i would just know that the defendant never raised that issue below the district court had no opportunity to make any fact finding as to the purpose of the beam and the government strenuously suggest that the purpose of that be it was not coercive we're talking about a stop on the side of a highway at dusk and i think that spotlight was really done more for safety reasons than for anything else but we've never had a chance to make a record on that because this is really an afterthought that was raised for the first time on appeal so i don't