secret away in the dark behind a propane tank and they said that in seventy five yards from the intersection it was not it was double that and yet their credibility with regard to the ability to judge evidence which i have to admit having never happened to me before i could never had an opportunity to actually show a falsehood with that level of reliability and hard evidence but it but it was there and still they were whatsoever to get into any car and house or any person's pockets that they want whenever because those dogs are being trained to smell don't like not a marijuana if i'm a cop and i smell marijuana then that odor even if somebody had been you know i got in over a few weeks ago and it seems pretty clear to be emerging i've only been smoking marijuana in the car before meaning that he alerted to something that when nothing was there that if you look at his face his actual performance in real traffic stops it's funny the way they work because hill alert the dog  that possible are so they never believe their dog is wrong if the dog doesn't find something they're like oh well it must be reasonable order and then they go and talk to the person and it's like have you been in the house in the last week marijuana oh yeah somebody around ok that's it that's what he was allergic to so you can't accurately judge the recordings of whether or not this dog is right or wrong because they retroactively go back and try to make it right in every single case exactly like they did district judge that was not a gated two years after he was a became a district judge so i think that's the distinction as to why as a matter of standard policy within our district that he is recused from matters dollars because of some tangential involvement in the case that was then occur occur within our district because it's a supervised release revocation is just a continuation of that prior case we're talking here credibility first i'd like to make correction of my colleague when she said that the officers testified that this defendant made it to smoking marijuana that is not officer what did he make you smoke marijuana and they said yes back they said no again transcript to ninety eight transcript to page one hundred and sixty three i think the most problematic testimony see she could have been the steak and having heard the entirety of her testimony here in the entirety of officer vanished testimony he found the officers overall credible and and he also address this this notion that just because she isn't correct too and we agree i think looking at the handwriting that there's no argument that that she had right there but it's also based on the premise that the argument that because you didn't write the ticket that means they did absolutely nothing during the approximately two minutes and forty nine seconds that she's an officer welch's car processing the ticket that is a very short amount of time to be able to completely process a ticket through even finalizing the written warning or citation so if we look at the sequence of events within four minutes and one second they bart they ran the criminal history supreme court said the seizure they were the st seizure and when that task tied to the traffic infraction are or reasonably should have been completed and it would be speed of light in six minutes and fifty seconds and so granted we have we do have the credibility issue which the judge addressed and he's in the best position to address that given  one hundred and forty five yards versus seventy five yards their estimate was off of how far away they were from that intersection but they didn't describe it just in terms of distance from the intersection of when he made the turn maybe they  headlights of the car were a lumination that intersection at the time he used his turn signal and the rule of thumb going approximately fifty feet further the headlights to directly illuminating and front of a car so using those a car five blocks away headlights driving towards that intersection that was the possibility argument that was made in her brief below is part of the ability and intersection one hundred and forty five yards away i just i don't understand i don't under i don't understand that argument that the argument now is well it's impossible to judge just one hundred feet from that and i don't know how actually saying it's impossible how how you can say the possible particularly given the visual cues that officer danner testified or the visual description not just distance weiss but actually twenty four percent of those are her experts numbers based on training and looking at a specific area of car alerting on cars and trains she she looked at those numbers and said well he has an eighty percent or eighty percent fine rate and up to a twenty four percent of false alert rate but even if we took are experts numbers in training that would show th for a constitutional purpose that again we're talking about a fair probability and even with a high false alert rate according to their experts twenty four percent that means seventy six percent of the time know if a dog arsenal or whether he missed something or something or not on the other hand when a dog doesn't hurt and there's nothing in there the court in harris said it's going to significantly overstate false positives why because there are a number of options one the dog could have very much of a mistake and number two during the search they missed something or number three a dog alerts to odor and not the presence of the actual dr and so you have the possibility of the learning to reschedule lowder so that's the problem with relying on field records so the court says what we do is we take the presumption that that the alert opportunity to have a number of false positives and during that particular certification he had no false positives so that's how you can take confidence at least from the certification standard is that when there are opportunities for the dog to fail when alerts are out of one hundred and ninety six items that leaves one hundred and seventy nine that have nothing in them and he doesn't learn i think we can take confidence this dog is now they have an opportunity to rebut that based on faulty methodology in training or to lax the standards and what the argument came down to below it was the difference between cotton balls or what suede dog which is the national certifying body says you can train on only up no less than one gram so cotton balls versus one gram and i will tell you the record absolutely record is the difference between those two i d keep the records yes because the video that i took it was after the conclusion of the evidence i asked the court to allow me to present it and the court said no that video was taken and at the propane tank at the same time of night  in i think was two years later and that was the officers and you know we had an afternoon and then the government requested to put on additional evidence and back took time to we had at that point we had to gather additional evidence and so we asked for a six minute statements as a reasonable time for any traffic stop i personally had that experience last week took three and a half minutes actually measured to get a ticket for speeding on the highway in terms of the act you know whether or not rodriguez