ok fine and i just like to point out these microphones as you can tell do not amplify they only record so the people in back can't hear a word you're saying unless you speak up ok thank you we may begin you know you to automobile exception and solve it is because an automobile can move however once there is probable cause to search an automobile you can move chaps after they had him whole all over they observed him hiding child or hiding something in the seat of the car so i pass point by officers have probable cause of however they did below where he granted the defendant's motion to quash honor we take issue with the probable cause finding by the court and then another to noble review this court can also take issue with it i think the first thing that we should look at is why the police pulled the car over we have the issue of the information that they got from a criminal mr cass who in his confession related to the police that he was given drugs by two hispanics jose and pedro that they got these drugs from a car there was absolutely no information at all provided by cass that there was more drug use contained within the automobile we have many small but but what he said was he saw jose get the paper bag from the secret compartment in the car and he brought it into the house then the police observed the individuals who they later learned were jose and pedro bring up paper bag back out into the car and one officer observed it was a reach into the back seat and then the paper bag was nowhere to be found so not only do they have to say well there was drugs in the house i saw are they have to say that i saw drugs in the house and there has to be a reasonable likelihood that there's more drugs in the house that's why typically on a search warrant affidavit the informant goes to the house does a buy and says he get he i saw him bring out a bag of drugs he gave me a couple bags out of that larger bag and i saw him carry the bag back into the house that would be probable cause now but we know that there was a paper big ticket now that there's a people bag but even the people bag they don't look lisa admit they don't know what's in the paper bag that's true but they do know liz it was told to them there's a cartridge they look at the car they couldn't doesn't right because there's still suspicion all right so let's say there's terry suspicion let's say that there's a reasonable what you will suspicion to stop the car why isn't bad this is painted when they search the car and find no drugs or weapons in fact they go even further because this what it what was said of the paper but i mean everything was fitting into what they were told yeah but but those are is the cases talk about innocuous details innocent details which is exactly what it is here a  and everything he said sort of works out the car is there it's a cold cadillac there are two guys coming out of the house their names manch they're carrying a paper bag he talked about a paper bag then and it did it best that would provide basis for a terry stop at best we don't even think it be an actor these details do that but it best it might provide for a terrorist out then not only do they do terry stop they say that ok you have a valid license we're pulling you over for a seatbelt violation but they did with total search of the car and come up and come up empty the lopez says that he infected him the car looks normal a nice in that he has some experiences your honor saying with contrast then we get into the situation alice which which of course is a lot about twenty years after john's and these other cases the police are doing their surveillance on this house for over an hour over an hour why do we not have a dog then if based on castes confession why don't we have a dog available instead we have a collar situation with unlawful prolonging the detention on and on probable cause that if anything is dissipated in our opinion rather than increased then we have them taken to the station in handcuffs for detention according to the police just like they are pulled over for a seatbelt violation according to the police and in the car  the cases talk about not only depriving them of their personal liberty but but the privacy interest in the car itself the car is also removed to the station affected the courts found out then if if why don't they have the dog the scene why did the why is the defended after then wait for two hours or three hours for the dog to come to the station all the time is possessory interest in his personal liberty or are being infringed on libya do you agree or disagree that if there is probable cause that the snap that it doesn't matter whether what happened at home well i disagree with the limited holding of janice johns was it was a case unique and expects an adult with packages and then this shows the difference between this case and the johns case just case this is the police officers actually could rely on their sense of smell and smell the packages of marijuana if they saw the pickup trucks going to the airport retrieving it's almost like and they saw of time and what occurs thereafter and i think that's what judge ford was focusing on he said that if you were to bring these facts to me and i did he end it is a trial judge he sees a lot of search warrants if you're to bring these facts to me i'd say go get a war the dogs hit on the car and the cords said that that was that was proper it's a pure pleasure when the police pulled over this car they were not only investigating seatbelt miley but they traffic stop however the police of the of the motion to suppress didn't say we pulled this car over because though we had probable cause they said we pulled over because of because of the seatbelt violation or the seatbelt violation wouldn't permit them they can look for evidence then according to the end of the seatbelt violation they're not allowed to go through the whole crowd looking for more according to arizona versus can't think they're allowed to look at the crime that was th e basis of the original stop which is what arizona versus ansett and in the cases that the state is citing all of those cases are twenty five thirty years old and up and none of them ever have been  but for bradley which was a case that the state cited that's about twenty years old all of this is very old law that i think in view of arizona versus the ants and in view of the by list is no longer a viable fourth amendment long so that us from thinking they took the guns so well i don't think there's any any evidence in the record that any police said that they saw the shape of a gun or a rifle or anything else in the paper bag that was carried in normal house not in the paper bag but it seems to me that they would have some concern about their own safety at that point knowing that there's the potential that guns are somehow what's near taken out of a car in handcuffs and placed into the squad car and then the congress searched on the scene i think that would dissipate any any fear of safety by the police all night about terry pat down might be permissible but not a full blown search of the car on that necessarily not if they believe that there was also a car trap which the informant had been reliable but other things so what and he told them there's a car trip so if they think there's a car traffic car trips are designed to be hard to find they're designed to be obscure your you know lincoln or  western and lake and it's dark and there's traffic all around i'm not sure that i see what difference it makes to it to look at the car on this on this street there were five minutes  would absolutely be no difference well they didn't i don't i don't think that you've convinced me that they needed a warrant for the first so i'm sorry if if they didn't need a warrant to search the car when they stopped it when he was given drugs the drugs were in a paper bag and this is a dis is not a unique bag just doesn't say he may not it is a pretty it's a brown ubiquitous paper bag so unless we carve out a whole new exception that we're allowed to search cars based upon brown people bags or fear of some come when we search the car and we don't see anything well maybe that means there's a compartment there does that mean then that every car that we see on the street that we can't find anything can then be holed  in the police station and without a warrant literally tearing the car apart literally tearing the car parked at the police station and i pointed out to to the use of the judge which came in from our in the almost the same time period the f b i had a very everything fell into place i mean that's what the that's the information that he had that there was a crime and they see these guys coming out of the house where he said there was exchange of drugs i mean what more do the police have to do what would you say what would i think the the car by no drugs find no contraband and according to the police it doesn't is he doesn't see the car looks suspicious he says it look normal it look normal so there is a probable cause for that but your position  incapacitate the car have the police drive it to the station and then wait a couple hours for a dog snap and no attempt made to get a warrant either before then or even after that action then would have been more than appropriate to put that item in in the car and he can't gives a positive hit on the car that might be something that the that the any trial judge including judge ford would say yeah that that's enough for a warrant but failing that and just doing the more expeditious thing of tearing the car part based upon really no more than a hunch no more than a hunch then then that's improper and that's why this case really involves not only the probable cause issue but also the suspicion which are what you want to characterize we when they search the car on the street and don't be ended but they're allowed to do when they actually look in the car even under your runner's reasonable suspicion standard by nothing i've never seen a case where finding nothing supports probable cause best that's an anomaly in the criminal justice system that's why it's so important that when that distance when they move the car into the station and they have a dog in the station which they don't oh oh oh to new york the new york the e p a saw the person corroborated the details yet he's carrying bags and that's the description of the guy and they take the bags and rather than searching them what they're doing something with them at the airport they move the defendant and the bags to a different location and wait ninety minutes maybe minutes in that case to the subject at the further searching end the u s supreme court said that that's not proper moving it to a different location depriving him of his personal property depriving him of his liberty and these faction waiting ninety minutes to do it that's what we have here and that's become us addressed as well this is the same  can't the absence of that thing give rise to a problem i don't believe you can know and the reason why i think it's a different situation when you have a brown bag as opposed to some something like  actually describe the canvas bag and place that was moved here you have something that the you can get from subway almost earth you can carry anything in a paper bag you can carry money in a paper bag which is that you leave home and have somebody deliver drugs and got money in a paper bag the money itself is not illegal and what's most important is a cast those not say and the police cannot say that cask told them that there was more drugs or contraband in the car at all and to your point judge hyman that while the statute was the the compartment statute which i think is a misdemeanor now if i'm not mistaken having an unlawful compartment with intent to do a crime i think is a misdemeanor it was it is taken out of the absolute liability type of crime because they said that there could be legitimate purposes to having a compartment in a car but the point is  that when cast payne even say that that there is more in there just like a situation where an informant in a typical bookcases that there's more in the house without that the police have no basis for believing that they have a right to search search that he did say that he said i saw them take this paper bag out of the car when they can't get to my house they came into my house they took drugs out of the paper bag but they only gave me some of the drugs the rest of the drugs are still in the paper bag in the house these two guys are in the house and oh by the way there are guns there well we don't know how many people bags are in the house containing drugs i mean the police went in fact when they went back there after the defense for custody and went back there and they found more drugs in paper bags so if we don't know that we're that's just that's all conjecture which under the fourth amendment we're not really allowed to do so my point is is that there was no no probable cause to search at the scene it was improper seizing them seizing the car was ended and the probable cause has to be specific and it has to be not just packages like in john's that the police actually could see and sniff or or in inbred need that the case sites that state sites where the person says that you know those are the stolen items that i saw the guy putting in his brown car so those cases were very specific i don't believe probable cause even if your honor were to find that at the scene i don't think that's enough to justify packages that the agents in johns sniffed and saw the guy pick up at the airport three days later they said then the probable cause with the packages is enduring effect the court gens said that the defendants didn't make any claim on their property in jobs separating the car from the packages here be pretty hard for mr contrarians to make a claim on his property when he's in custody so i think it's a it's not a john situation and unless we completely eviscerate fourth amendment law with respect to our searches and allow the police on any kind of stop to say we search the car we didn't find anything therefore there's a tra corroborates what we heard were then allowed to take the car to the station and tearing apart without submitting it to some intervening person like a magistrate it to ok that's that's what's improper next was very dangerous if there's any that was behind george house apartment they stopped the barrel in the car and they saw him turn around to the back of a car where mr kast had five big trap drive and the back disappeared when they were pulled over the two justice means and stated that these officers were performing a traffic stop there was no probable cause or suspicion that there were narcotics in the car another officer happened to be nearby with a drug sniffing dog at the time