please the court counsel this morning i'd like to focus my argument on the th amendment issue but of course this court has any questions about my nd argument i'd be more than happy to address them nervousness and furtive movements cannot be the bedrock of reasonable suspicion and in this case officer shot having testified that at the time that he pulled over sam will be aired he did not believe that he had reasonable suspicion from what the state described as a headlong flight or from the anonymous tips that he had heard instead he described beard in his passenger spoke too much for what he would expect and seemed to suspicion as this court wrote in people be thomas all the nervousness can contribute to reasonable suspicion nervousness is not enough to arouse reasonable suspicion for you stated coun that it can't be the bedrock but in this instance it was added to what the officer already had perceived it was added to two factors that themselves do not lead to reasonable suspicion and i think it's important to go over the timeline a little bit the the two tips and the headlong flight were not all known to officer shopping simultaneously when he pulled into the church parking lot to assist with what he thought were some people locked out of the car what he saw were the people from the truck standing on either side of the gold sedan and he recognized one of the teenagers standing as somebody whose mother had made a statement that he had failed to come home when i and she was generally concerned that he might be using drugs again or marijuana specifically at that time he did not know that the gold sedan belonged to mr beard so he was not aware of two tips going together he was only aware of one teenager and if so he should have followed the truck as it departed instead he decided to follow the gold's dan  randall license plate number saw that it was registered to dan beard and realize that who he saw had not been a middle aged man it must have therefore been his son sam beard so these factors don't themselves create reasonable suspicion that the nervousness and furtive movements were adding on it's sort of like if the officer inverted the pyramid a reasonable suspicion that is to say nervousness and for movements can be the cherry on top they can be the absolute pinnacle of the pyramid but they can't be the foundation and you can add other reasonable suspicion or things that do not independently create reasonable suspicion on top of nervousness attack you know the car they're stopped in the middle of the lane this is already incredibly suspicious behavior and then on top of that the officer found that the defendant seemed nervous right he had that information he testified that he gets these sorts of tips all the time however an anonymous tip or even a semi anonymous tip sends in this case officer shopping testify that he at one point knew who the themselves but what you're doing is you're you're parsing this thing out and saying well this issue this by itself has not this by itself is not is that really the way we look at these the th amendment stops the search or do we take into consideration the totality of the circumstances betelgeuse of the opposite of the time the stop certainly this court uses to tell you the circumstances i don't need to parse it's only that it's difficult to talk about everything at once and i believe that this court's recent decision in people be thomas is very indicative of how this court can go through factors when there are factors that don't rise to reasonable suspicion certainly this court examined all of the officers testimony and people be thomas about the defendant driving straight through from washington to alabama a thirty five hour drive not stopping not having significant amounts of money having a lot of road trash on his or in his car indicating that he wasn't stopping to eat at restaurants but for its analysis this court went through each individual factor and said well that's not enough some people don't like to fly they prefer to drive and some people don't stop at restaurants and a lot of people who are on a thirty five hour drive are chugging red bull and drink eating beef jerky so going through and finding that each one didn't help the officers reasonable suspicion and then stepping back and looking of course of the tally of the circumstances as one must in a th amendment review it's equally here that each individual piece of the puzzle doesn't create reasonable suspicion and thus when they're put all together and you look at the fatality of the circumstances you have a bunch of half mismatched puzzle pieces that don't create a tello reasonable suspicion so the flight here was simply mr beard and the people in the truck exercising their right to not have contact with the police officer and could very well have believed that as a bunch of teenagers who were blocking an alleyway they were about to get yelled at for being parked where they shouldn't have been parked and so poncing officer shopping drive through the church parking lot decided that they better get into their cars and go but didn't amount to the headlong flight the course is confronted in cases like illinois the wardlow where the defendant upon seeing an officer started riding his bicycle as fast as he could down an alleyway taking a piece of movement of maneuvers and doing his level best to avoid the police so it not being had a long flight that does not add to the reasonable suspicion we have a mismatched puzzle piece the st is the quantity and the detail of the information for the tip about beards the detail of the information was not on school property and not during school hours usually after school was outside of the school property at any time that he wasn't in school and i can if i can just interrupt for a nd and i apologize if maybe i'm just not understanding that i took your arguments in your brief to be focused primarily on excuse me on the prolonging the stop not the initiation of the stop i hear i'm hearing your arguments today focusing on the mission asian of  rodriguez the question here is whether there was reasonable suspicion to you want that stop because in rodriguez the court decided that even a di was incredibly low and the nd factor is the time interval between the chip and the naacp officer shopping testified that it was probably around two months at some point he testified it could have been as recent as one month prior samuel beard selling drugs the student really didn't say or at least officer shopping to be tested by the student that how they have this information for all we know it could have been a rumor that was going around will  prior to him knowing i believe that where the information prior to him knowing is actually him an important factor he would have to know that the chip was reliable and not just a rumor you know were for him to  he wasn't than here the cars registered you but he still did not believe based on what he'd seen in the alley based on what do you heard either from the st teenager who was in the truck mother or from the student at some sort of call game that he had reasonable mission so that leaves the next factor that he discussed which is the nervousness in the bird movement and not how it all comes together in the t circumstances you can never amount to the amount of reasonable suspicion required for this kind of lay didn't need testify that he believed based upon well he said were that the two individuals in the truck were startled when he pulled up or into the alley didn't he didn't testify that because of the departure and because they were startled that he suspected that a drug transaction may have occurred he testified that he suspected that a drug transaction may have occurred he did not see any money changing hands he did not see any drugs chang requires reasonable articulable suspicion and if your hunch that the drug dealing has taken place in that alleyway is not going to rise to that level well if the person who's startled is someone whose mother has asserted it is using drugs and then he later determines that the driver of the vehicle the same a beard who is rumored to be a purveyor of drugs and he says they appeared far more nervous than any people of their age ordinarily would in addition the passenger attempted to answer questions on behalf of the driver as if he were trying to explain something that seems like a lot of antennas go up in ten or maybe and they're starting to this imagery of each puzzle piece just isn't enough and so when they come together even though i had knowledge to tell you the circumstances review it this court upholds this kind of  contribute but it cannot arouse reasonable suspicion in people be thomas the court held that nervousness combined with a history of drug trafficking was not enough for reasonable suspicion and i urge of the circumstances and not a party out of each factor in this case shopping's observation of nervousness in furtive motion movements contributed to regional suspicion departed and the officer said testified that usually individuals do not scatter and go opposite directions when they see a police officer so this was part of his re accounted would not not have been accounted for if they were just looking through the glove compartment th when shopping got to the driver side door both the driver and the passenger appeared overly nervous the passenger was very interested in what shabby had to say and helped answer some a shabby questions officer testified they were more nervous than young people their age during a traffic stop shifts in addition during the whole duration of the stopped they looked in the mirror and kept turning completely around to see what shouting was doing the court found that they watched being much more closely than with the average citizen during a traffic stop in this case that there was not only the nervousness in furtive motion it's at the driver and passenger as a court found below  ruling on a motion to suppress in his training and experience shopping thought this situation that he approached looked like a drug transaction one car park in front of the nd car with the nd car's doors open a male subject on each side of the st car leaning in the windows and finally there was also the two tips there were two tips in this case regarding the driver and one of the juveniles at the other car i known students had told shouting personally in a month or two earlier that defendant was selling marijuana to high school students right after school and not on school property the tip was i would maintain that this  reliable where it was right robbery to buy the fact that it was defend his car it was right when school let out there were two cars involved it was a secluded area an alley behind a church not on school property one of the other individuals at the scene was a high school student and i think importantly this is the specific individual shagging had received information from his mother that to believe they add ons he had reason suspicion to prolong that the stock you needed reasonable suspicion at the time he made the phone call not at the time he approached the car and all these factors were present at the time he made that phone call right i think it's a fair inference from shopping for testimony that the informant was an eyewitness the informant was a high school student just dismissed from school when everyone else was dismissed that he would have had the opportunity to see what was going on after school much like the wendy's that employee in shafer a th district case from two remaining that might be sold later or something well that sounds more like a herd's that a reasonable suspicion well i think with the totality of the circumstances he still had enough  to call that for the canine unit if you're referring to the stat this stop was justified on the basis of speeding and crossing the center line no i'm not referring to stop i have no problem with that the standard what's a reasonable amount of time i think of reasonable suspicion to prolong a stop in order for a canine unit to arrive and conduct a free air sneath i think that would see right how  this case they trial court found that the step was prolonged for longer than necessary to complete the written warnings however i made an argument in my grief that it was not a re there conversation between the two chiefs is ninety seconds d and then it takes a period of time for the dog to arrive in my case during that time he was still writing  asians i'm just talking about that passage of time because when you say ninety seconds it means like it took a minute may have to get everything done and that's not the case any other questions ok we'll hear from miss lucy under both your honor it just as turner's point rodriguez court was quite clear that any extension of a stop outside of the mission of the traffic stop born reasonable suspicion is no longer permitted the court did indeed on page twenty five of this brief say that the stop was momentarily delayed which pre rodriguez might have been what courts would have considered  justice connex point well the call itself was ninety seconds officer shopping did testify that he could have given beard the nd citation of poor officer harding came in from toledo with a drug sniffing dog so the stop was delayed which means that reasonable suspicion had to exist the movements that officer shopping saw in the car and i agree with the state that  is the suspicion had to exist before he made this phone call so while he continued to see movements after he delayed the stop i believe this court's consideration should start at the moment that he begins his phone call to arms or handling at that time these movements can be very innocently explained as two people desperately trying to locate the driver's license the insurance information and the registration officer shopping testified he saw the passenger reaching down if they didn't find the valid insurance card in the glove compartment box a reasonable place for an insurance card to a pleasure to way would be the passenger well so that would require reaching down to the foot reaching under the seat reaching into the side compartments maybe trying the driver side compartment it was his father's car who knows where this errant insurance card was and as the nd district telling people be petty when a movement may be consistent with a number of innocent scenarios and then the officers observation is a mere hunch i would see that furtive movements would arise from a situation like the one that this court  people the whole bridge where there was a smell of marijuana coming from the car the officer saw a marijuana cigarette and on top of these there was furtive movement call what's your response to that my response would be that the officer would not then have been able to stop the car unless he saw traffic violations like he did in that case i about sam being in his car that cars were involved didn't say that he had i witnessed anything or she we don't know the gender of the tipster and again just a turning point because officer shopping thought that there was a drug deal at the time he did not know that it was a single beer in the car he had the mother's tip about the other child i believe mr mix here who got into the truck and drove away perhaps officer shopping should have followed the truck if you believe he saw a drug deal that's where he might have thought the drugs were instead he followed samuel beard before he even knew that it was a single beer car and finally to nervous this as a factor i