mayville district court held in this case that an officer is intitled to do nothing to advance the mission of a traffic stop so long as a computer check is running somewhere in the background the district court held the troopers could properly complete the records check pursuant to the traffic stop if for investigating their suspicions about mayfield's impairment this rule from the district court is directly contrary to the rule in rodriguez in which the supreme court again building on decades of jurisprudence requiring diligence on the part of officers at every point during a traffic stop ruled once again that officers can't earn onus time by setting things up so that they have free time to undertake investigations unrelated to the mission of the traffic stop trooper try pati it's clear from the context of this case it was fact doing nothing for portions of the running of the triple i computer check so he had two reasons i don't quite read what i've original for that they were that he was doing and what caused  on in determining whether a criminal history background check is an acceptable part of a routine traffic stop so the balancing that happens in mc ray is that this is an instantaneous traffic stop i think the language and mccrae there are four different times in that one footnote that mcrae talks about how fast this is but it's instantaneous and this is a language that's picked up in this court on bank opinion in holt is that this is something that happens contemporaneously with writing the citation so th amendment balancing test is the importance of the government's interest and the severity of the intrusion on individual liberty so in mccrea in holt when that balancing test is done the intrusion on individual liberty is nonexistent because it instantaneous it doesn't add to the length of the detention at all under those circumstances and i would like to point out as a sort of factual background matter that mccrae is a case from one thousand nine hundred and ninety six in which the triple lie from an out of state car and an out of state driver's license returned instantaneously in this case twenty four years later it took twelve minute to return a triple i check computers have not gotten slower in the last twenty four years they've gotten faster so this is a very different circumstance on the intrusion on individual liberty side it's also i would argue a different circumstance on the government interest in office safety side of the equation it makes sense to return a criminal history check to help an officer out if he's going to get it right away if he's going to find out oh wait a minute this is a really dangerous guy i need to be careful here then his safety is actually improved i think it's much to be questioned whether officer safety is enhanced in fact whether it might not be harmed do you agree that if this panel not extend stop if it didn't if this court finds that it didn't extend the stop that's a more problematic argument for us but the triple i can be appropriate at its inception and become inappropriate as time drags on where an officer goes if you have a pending triple ah you don't have the information you can suddenly without the information being that the officer needs to  terminate the stop and let the person go on it could mean that it could also mean the officer should try another method the officer here in this case clearly had different methods for checking for a triple of four for everything he had an onboard computer it's a no i think it's a legal determination to the extent that it's a question of reasonableness which is always refused by this court to nova but that takes me back to rodriguez because rod riggers which you're relying on clearly says that the courts are not supposed to nd guess the logistical choices that the officers making back in place said rico says they have to be diligent at all times and rodriguez says what i just told you about not being able to nd guess the logistical parts of what off treatment i would tend to disagree judge will dock to the extent that it says that and it does say that officers are required to be diligent throughout the stop and this is not unique to rodriguez this court in the mid eighty's in sharp which is cited in the brief says the police are acquired to argument that says that the that the officers are not permitted to run a triple law check in a reasonable basis i'm not arguing that officers cannot ever r like i'm going to to stay with my position judge all doc that i think the reasonableness decision is one this court refused to novo at the reasonable ness of an officer's actions under a during a traffic stop our review didn't understand the court did find that the dog sniff and indication by the dog occurred during the time investigation the case rises or falls on whether a police officers intitled to run a check in a way and wait for a check as long as it takes as long as you know it we would have for it would depend on how it mapped on to the facts of this case depend on what else was happening at the time on the exactly the same facts that took place otherwise because then you have  immigrate because they're the traffic stop took a total of yes that would be a disco if it took eight minutes should we say half way between the facts and mccrae and in our case then would we so what i'm saying is it's not a question strictly of five minutes versus eight minutes versus twelve minutes it's a question of is the officer diligently trying to finish up this stop so if it takes eight minutes and that's how long it takes to write a citation and finish up with any reasonable suspicion that the officer may have developed than eight minutes is fine but if it takes eight minutes and the officer is able to just sit around googling things or is able to get out of his car stop writing the citation all together making no effort to investigate impairment or write a citation which were the two reasons he had the person here at this point if he can give all that up if it gives him time to not do things then there's a problem it's created free time and that is never a problem with the fact that he did not use the computer that he had in the car i have a problem i think there is a problem if something begins to take an unreasonable length of time and the officer has is not doing the things he should be then yes you should if you find resented with somebody who's driving out of state vehicle i think everything indicates that he is from out of state and testimony that in a finding that you get less information when you use computer in the car versus  going through dispatch i would say that again in mccrea out of state view i'm talking about this case there's if there's been finding there is a to finding in this case then i argue that the computers dried only limited information then i would argue that completeness is not a value the to recognize but this court the government is not identified a single case that says it's reasonable to detain a passenger is a long as it takes to get the most complete record possible and again i would say we're doing the th amendment balancing it seems to me highly counter intuitive that an officer is safer by staying around this hypothetically extremely dangerous person with testimony in the case is that he thought it was drug related and trip or a tripod he did not indicate any officer safety concerns until he went to pull mr tripod or mr mayville sorry out of the car at trooper request so he sat there were stood by the car for six minutes had no officer safety concerns asked him to come back was refused had no officer safety concerns sat in the car waiting had no officer safety concerns as to each time like you did there i had no officer safety concerns the st time he testified that he did have officer safety concerns was when he pulled mr mayville out of the car and at that point decided he needed to frisk him because and then it was not because he put something under the car trooper tripod he said i had officer safety concerns because he seemed impaired which he seemed all along and because he'd refused at st request to get out of the car so it no point was that stashing something he did testify affirmatively that he thought it might be drug related which is why he wanted more time to investigate it and i see that i've nearly exceeded my time so if they're not for their question and even rodriguez which which cites hold itself as a as a rule a triple i check if done appropriately should be allowed to ring a traffic stop especially for almost really isn't that the argument in this case whether it was done appropriately the argument in this case that it is that it unreasonably prolong the traffic stop that means it wouldn't been appropriately right  and i think it's important to kind of note some of the some of the facts this was a case where late at night the defendant driving speeding had  are you ok we would argue that both the triple i check as a bright line rules appropriate but is specially in this case it was appropriate it's also important important to note that there's nothing  detector requests to dispatch for a narcotic detector and then begin to fill out the citation why does the request for the dog sniff relate to the ground for reasonable suspicion that he's impaired how would a dog sniff checking to see whether he had or caught x in the vehicle relate to the ground for reasonable suspicion we would argue that it the dog sniff would demonstrate the presence of the odor of narcotics that doesn't necessarily mean that narcotics are in the vehicle that does sometimes mean that narcotics had just been smoked in the view as demonstrated just demonstrated by the fact that the methamphetamine pipe was found underneath the vehicle including are you on some type of medication and also asking him about his travel plans and asking you know whether or not he's ok i mean this is part and parcel of you know invest next question how do you maintain the we look at the for the district courts of optimism we believe the district court findings were not clearly erroneous and that there's ample evidence in the record of what the district court found no judge murphy asked dispatch rather than his i do through dispatch because our computers only give a certain information a lot of times we see like a partial return things are from a different state we don't always see it so i know dispatch has access to more ways to check so that's why i run through it  and that's not a completeness issue necessarily again this only took this check took about eleven or twelve minutes that's all it is the entirety of the traffic stop look at rodriguez for just a nd it was a twenty one minute traffic stop and after the traffic stop was completed and the agents decided to run in the agents ran a jog around the vehicle which took another seventy eight minutes and in this case well the well the triple i check is running in the background trooper tripodi is filling out the citation that's that's that's in the record he said i was filling out the citation a council has some issues with him googling things like lake have a sou part of that is because number of times are you ok are you on medication is there something wrong and even testified in front of the district court about how usually when somebody stopped they they alert they pick up and in this case that was not happening of the questions that you asked appellant we believe that if a triple i check is reasonable and the appellant does lose but we would still argue that even if the triple i check itself as a bright line rule it's not reasonable that there was reasonable suspicion to continue the traffic stop and that was both to run the dog had hold the car back to possibly do was going on we would we would argue that for all of these reasons both the running of the triple check was reasonable and did not unreasonably prolong the stop and that reasonable suspicion it existed to continue that st for the documents some documents waiting for the documents and if you watch the video it happens is stripper tripodi talking to ask him some questions where you go on where you come from you know those types of things and well he's asking those questions video triple triple digits ok don't worry about i'll try to i'll try to find it i'll try to figure out it's again this list is so there's more than six minutes it's about six minutes or so and and trooper the triple lie is approved by the supreme court as a category of things an officer may do to facilitate officer safety but it is not treated the same way as the other four checks are or and license registration proof of insurance it is not the case that rodriguez says that every particular instance of running a triple law is going to be reasonable is there any evidence in the record of how long it takes to do the other three checks in comparison to the triple why it took twenty five seconds in this case on the onboard computer before the officer knew there was a valid license that the car was registered in that it had insurance and i do want to clarify that it one hundred and forty six or fourteen thousand nine hundred and forty two mr mayfield says that's the insurance right there you can hear him on the audio saying that so he had found the license and the insurance at that point for you heard back on the to reply dispatch yes it was twenty five seconds to get returns on all of those i fixed it so he activated not only the in car computer but also  dispatch i'm sorry activated the in car computer yes you should do asking dispatch yes st he did the record indicate that he received more information from dispatch than he received in his check the in car computer i don't think that that's clear from the record because my recollection of the record is all we know is from the aaa is positive for criminal history because i don't know how much detail he ultimately did not get that information in any information about criminal history from his in our computer my understanding of the record is he didn't ask for it from  computer on board he said i testified i run it through dispatch it's a record indication that if you go beyond and ask for criminal history from your