reasonable suspicion necessary to convert a priest limited driver's license check into an investigatory detention of mr molina and his passengers on dave if you could help me yes or actually was something i looked at the order and also and in the office just morning in the order she just writes that after that spanish language reference from rolling down the window the two passengers handed  thank your honor i'm not sure i have the it's a little confusing from the record in the preliminary hearing mr trooper bell testified that that after the trooper minggah who i believe was his colleague rolled the window down and a who his passengers were in the back seat and at that time mr mclean i spoke to them in spanish and the testimony at the preliminary hearing as i understand it was that he rolled that back window down and the two in the two passengers in the back seat offered up their identifications now at the suppression hearing that's he testified that that trooper fell testified the trooper minger requested those identifications from appear to rely on the testimony of trooper bell at the suppression hearing that the seating arrangement was was such that he was concerned about human trafficking now our position is that these checkpoint type encounters are seizures they are inherently seizures they are allowable seizures up to a point and it's a limited it's a limited point if it any point during this this this temporary authorized seizure if the stated programatic purpose of the stop has been achieved and there's no reasonable suspicion actively reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior going on and then they should be free to leave mr molina in his passengers were never free to leave in this case mr going ahead his driver's license seized at the very beginning of the encounter basically instantly and it was never returned to him so why trooper bell tried to testify at the preliminary hearing that this just a casual encounter and they were free to leave acknowledged at the suppression hearing that if he had left they would have pursued they would have pursued him so he was never free to leave and our position is if at any point in this encounter that stated purpose has been completed and there's no objective lee reasonable justification for going on then that then the encounter is on lawful and that occurs whether and whether that occurs in five seconds or ten seconds or thirty seconds is really of no consequence this court has recognized that these types of checkpoint encounters immigration checkpoint so you were you accepted it just avoids use of the immigration check wall to it to a degree i've i don't know that there's a i haven't been able to put my hands on a lot of opinions that deal specifically with these driver's license type checkpoints but they differ from terry stops in a way that we think is very important a terri schiavo case you know the immigration checkpoint role that she embraced because if you're saying that it's a valid use o would have thought border immigration checkpoints do allow inquiry as to every single passenger is identification immigration checkpoints do our position would be for us and then why are you saying that the law is similar well it's similar in the sense that the reasonable suspicion in korean analysis is similar in that in an immigration checkpoint context if if the officers have checked everybody's documentation and to satisfy that everybody looks good and yet they continue to question them or continue the encounter beyond as i just i'll tell you where i am here because it seems to me once the officer sees a non nationals passport a woman at midnight and if we credit the district court's fact finding that it didn't have a valid entry it would seem to me at that point there was reasonable suspicion of traffic so for me the case all comes down to whether or not officer me could say whatever he said that pertained to the back seat passenger so my question is you have any checkpoint law that doesn't allow an officer in a suspicious checkpoint context from asking only enquire of the driver even if they are importantly looking at seat belts as the others displayed him of law the stated programatic purpose of the stop our position is that's what should drive should drive the rule and the stated programatic purpose of the stop according to trooper bill was to check driver's license make sure everybody's buckled up one does not require checking identifications of passengers in order to make sure that there buckled up  and our our our position it on in general here is that there are two inflection points one that occurs before the basically as they are seizing the backseat passengers identification and one after they have asked these questions of mr molina a in conjunction with taking those things two distinct and identifiable inflection points that occur before the nd vehicle comes in before we know anything about can conflicting statements between the two and our position is if either of these points their purpose has been stat satisfied and as far as the driver's license and seatbelt purpose we know those things were set aside and satisfied almost instantly that even if we're talking about a relatively short period of time between these inflection points and when the inconsistent statement comes from the nd driver but even if that short that that's an on lawful seizure if that st inflection point the only thing that is known in this is at the point where he is taking the two identifications from the backseat passengers and has already taken and by the way determined to be a valid driver's license from mr molina now that was to their counsel please i understood and we're just not don't know that he returned the preliminary hearing as well as the suppression hearing he was asked multiple times about the driver's license he stated that my recollection was that he stated  that it appeared to him to be valid he had no reason to believe that the driver's license was invalid now you know you know he's watching him are you just giving you know a view of what you think he was saying when he actually say i had no reason to worry doubt  i don't remember in the hours of testimony the trooper bell gave between the preliminary hearing and the suppression hearing i don't i don't think mr trigger belit it any point suggested that it was an invalid driver's license from from m license has been handed to trooper believe it was from mr molina it appears to them to be valid again the four cars in front of them where there industry were there for eighteen seconds forty five seconds twelve seconds even four seconds which seems remarkably fast but it does make some sense given the stated purpose at least trooper bell stated purpose if all the purpose of this is it to make sure your buddies buckled up and look at a driver's license that can happen in just  district court side to the nd circuit burnous said decision you remember that case i'm not sure if i do recall that when your honor i may be wrong but i thought the nd circuit just sort of said you know as a rule of thumb we're going to go one minute per passenger would you have a problem with that i would your honor our our our position particularly in the context of this of these types of driver's license checkpoints i think in a driver's license checkpoint you're talking about an even shorter time than the short time that is authorized in an immigration checkpoint because don't believe you argued that the st six cars were treated differently for me the difficulty in this case is it does i'm not i obviously am open minded but because i'm not no fan of suspicion stops but it seems artificial to say that even at a checkpoint the officer can't ask questions as simple as who's in the back that that doesn't seem to be prolonged or even investigating that's just like asking him where you're from and where  what you haven't disputed is a valid or here it's not just the asking of the questions is the asking of the questions in conjunction with the fact that these folks weren't free to leave they they didn't they had their driver's licenses and identification valid stance so it's got to be that he couldn't even wait for the window to come down and get handed the passport and i'm wondering is there any law that says that i'm not aware of any explicit law that says that with regard to these these  s license checkpoints but we do think that this is a situation where again there's a real question here about whether or not it was real it was proper and lawful for them to even get to the  thing that happens in this entire encounter are after he has been subject to this interrogation some thirteen or or more questions where you not only related to his i ten or ery but who is this guy you're going to see what does he do for a living what are your parents maiden names those types of questions are not reasonably related to the program addict purpose of the stop which had already been satisfied nor are they related in a reasonable way to the suggestion of human trafficking now we we we don't really accept the strains credulity from our perspective that this whole notion of human trafficking which ended up being very central to the district court's finding is a valid consideration here it was a nearly four hour hearing where trooper bell was asked questions by attorneys for all seven or so of these defendants at least four asked questions three people from the st car at least one from the nd what was suspicious about this what was it that made you that right here and even at the suppression hearing and this is a trooper bell at one point even basically acknowledged that there wasn't anything there at these inflection points that we're identifying it was asked at the suppression hearing at any point did you consider whether or not these defendants were just innocent travelers traveling from florida to memphis is they stated he said and i quote until the stories of both drivers didn't match up really not much at all just late night kids driving north in quote and really not much at all just late night kids driving north our position is that that that in no way satisfies the burden of reasonable suspicion necessary to to expand the scope and the temporal nature of the st the only thing close with and a couple of miles that would be maybe in mississippi where the last chance university community college is i think the things in that area pretty very rural area as the court noted there were twenty five seconds after the stop a nd car comes up that's that's the that's what the record reflects and at that point there's a questioning about if they're traveling together one driver says they are the other driver says they're not they're both from florida the initial stop now then become and wasn't really discussed at length during the preliminary hearing because after the initial stop then there is the nd vehicle driving up there's the conflicting actually it was occupied by two persons the driver had a temporary driver's license vehicle was registered florida but you know gummy just quickly in or out because i thought the brief was commendable in that you're not saying the temporary license or the midnight were the no one in the front passenger seat that constellation of factors gets reasonable suspicion i don't think you were and i think you also did not claim that this is relinquished because the load to the district court they said that the inquiry could go to the occupants licenses so am i right that this whole case turns on whether an officer at a suspicion is checkpoint stop can ask hassinger is questions is that what this comes down to and again there's no a case on but i think that it's clear that there's got to be some leeway for an officer to look at the situation and ascertain or try to ascertain what happens and if the nd circuit and i don't have the case in front me as a minute a passenger that's only right i'm also thinking of the stops are pertinent because nor do i think but i'd love to hear you disagree with me that immigration stops are because each allows officers to ask lots of brahmin ery chit chat questions where from where to what checkpoints sort of exist on something challenge which is was there any tree written protocol for this checkpoint which i thought was a supreme court requirement they're not challenging that but i i'd love to know what the rule of law is that you wait stop can police ask i doesn't make sense that you can ask for the licenses of passengers because passengers don't even have to have their licenses with them so why wouldn't we say that the rule of law is license who cares where people are sitting at wells who are like a you're getting a hunch something's wrong but go ahead i'm sorry no no no i'm i'll stop i'm asking too many questions you keep going with your can i can i ask though or do you agree with me that immigration checkpoint law is not relevant because there you can ask a lot more i have said it's not relevant trying to because i think in those circumstances and there's the case where the you know th suspicion was developed if any to the officer prior to having any kind of request whoever made it to have actually passenger yet of something reasonable suspicion preferably in your position i guess and if so on what is that based and if you say there is not and will move on i think and look the court in ruling on the books light and s findings about arguably addict i suppose that the late hour the seating arrangement and and then the driver's license ought i think combined maybe not to be reasonable suspicion but a certain point where you  get the passport from the female on the back of a valid step is certainly becomes and i think that's a valid you're able to ask well why you may not be entitled to ask that in certain circumstances the fact that that happens within a minute here yeah i think is about about their travel arrangements before anything is done to the backseat passengers decision was happened is it's a location whatever to make of this highway there is  a temporary driver's license and there's whatever the the officer can see which is the seating arrangement or anything else you want to identify is it your position that that is create reasonable suspicion looking for illegal taxis doesn't say that it's not a factor it says it's a one of a number of factors and that's what the case that the st district courts i did as well that's and one of a number of factors that can be realized or thought leading to reasonable suspicion but maybe that nd circuit district court opinion explicitly said if you have an empty front seat that's reasonable suspicion of of human trafficking now it says it could lead to  medallion system and all that that's what's going on in that case my understanding so they see they see a crown victoria they realize a lot of taxis are around it for is a bigger vehicles they see the odd seating arrangement on the district court says that factor alone is insufficient but and b when considering the situation that arises and as visible in the st seconds of the seating arrangements odd hours off and so i think that's what's going on there once the once the passports produced i think that is certainly not that i'm aware of i don't and i think for safety of the passengers i think they've done obligation if if if they think there's something going on their human trafficking holding us to well it's a dereliction of duty to let them go on would be my argument  mission whatever number of seconds it was twenty five seconds you know be it was shows or is there a clock on all of this do we know at what point after the st encounter with the driver carefully the tapes and made the findings in her order about that and also listen to the preliminary hearing or testimony and so she based her ruling the twenty two page order on bows three sources but there was a there may consider is just how grief were was is encountered or anything more substantial arose not necessarily our rule when minutes good women when seconds not that this all testimony of the suppression here ok and it's irrelevant to the dog that didn't alert in the end there was no car narcotics in the dog dog just alerted and boom there we are right that's right you know that to me the argument that somehow that's so invalid rocket is is just wrong i mean that from the dog shit fact that you don't on drugs doesn't mean the owner wasn't there so i think that is a valid right so you've got again just to repeat where i am because i'm struggling in this would be very significant because the fist circuit hasn't issued a driver license safety checkpoint case so it's really important for us to get it right as to how far police can go do i and i am i do think reasonable suspicion existed once the passport was turned over clearly when the nd car comes up that's just my view in this case my difficulty i'll say again is can officers at a suspicion is checked white make inquiry about passengers now i want to understand your position do you not accept the premise and you say yes there was reasonable suspicion i virtue of the midnight hour and no one in that front passenger seat or do you only say reasonable suspicion emerged when the passport was handed out but you think it was such a quick amount of trying that did it is irrelevant whether the officer prompted that passport to be handed out which is your position i think you're on of the the latter i think the fact that all happens within the twenty five to thirty seconds the court  so i think but i think i can also see pretty clearly an answer to just one is question i think the officer has to be able to look at a situation and sure the safety of the passengers not just from a driver's license once it's visible yes but there you create the you use the word the safety off and that presumably just means confirming belts are on do you agree with me that passengers don't even need to carry licenses you agree yes or no i all i'm sure s a better honor ok so therefore you do think that at a checkpoint the officer according to your brief can verify the licenses of all occupants and i'm asking what's your authority asking or before whatever happened we really don't have a fact finding whether the media asked we do have sort of conflicting evidence on that from bell as to what bill said actually happen but if there's some level of suspicion lower than reasonable suspicion that you're saying arose from what was visually visually apparent and the also was  in a fairly short period of time it existed at least could pursue that where he couldn't have it he didn't have this war level of suspicion a minute really do feel like we're in uncharted waters and we do something like that but that's sort of what i heard  are in addressing a situation i think officer has some ability to to act a certain amount on a hunch to ascertain the safety i think that's a limitation once the passports in hand but all for the safety of the passer think there's got to be some right for an officer to not just to try and verify the safety of a passenger beyond just a driver's well just a seatbelt but i'm not sure  i want to call a hunch i don't want to call anything was a reasonable suspicion i think the circumstances the other but again it happens within twenty five to thirty seconds on not sure that it causes any substantial way to the the rest of the rest of the safety act on a hunch if it's if it falls short of reasonable suspicion and that may be the policy argument he's proposing but i don't think that's what the lawsuit is he has acknowledged that this maybe was not reasonable suspicion at least the confluence of factors that was available once mr licensed that had been checked and everybody had been visibly verified to be wearing a seat belt at that particular point yes i know we're talking about a relatively short period of time between that and when the car pulls up and then some minutes later when there's a conflicting statement but at that point if mr molina and his passengers are not free to leave and are not reasonably free to leave then they are seized under the law  right and then they hand out the passport at least according to some of the testimony in the st hearing i'm not i didn't take who's in the back to mean do you do you have anybody back there i'm assuming a driver who's standing trooper who's standing at the can see that there are passengers in the back i took who is who is in the back to be a request for mr molina a to identify his backseat passengers which already goes beyond the program matic stated purpose of the stop  was what's wrong with if it's twenty five seconds you don't dispute that then maybe go was able to ask the driver where you coming from where you going that's ok right at a checkpoint and at a travers license checkpoint if the driver's license is valid i think i think if he's doing that while he's looking at the license with this in the st few seconds where you come in from where you go and might be ok ok now that's ok but then i think i'm right that the feds are wise i'm coming from mississippi and yet he was actually still in mississippi why isn't that another factor like this guy he says he's coming from mississippi but he's actually in mississippi i could see myself doing that because i don't know where mississippi starts  english and as a nd language to write but i dress well and leave you know it quickly we know the passport comes out really quickly there's twenty five seconds till the nd car that means the passport is coming out of the window within ten or fifteen seconds is going up blige to say no no no no i can't look at that no i don't think he is necessarily again we have trooper bell testified explicitly during the suppression hearing that they asked for those licenses and again the record isn't entirely clear mr roberts suggests that there has it would be a dereliction of duty was his line not to follow up on this idea of a human trafficking based on this confluence of factors our position is if that were true then the invest the questions that followed would have to be somewhat reasonably related to the idea to dispelling the notion of human trafficking and they weren't they were just an interrogation of mr molina and where he's going and who is family members are and this different variety of things mr bell said two different things he said a lot of things but there are a couple things in particular that that are there is telling is anything i quoted during my during the st fifteen minutes when he said up until the stories of both drivers didn't match up really not much at all just gets driving north that is a tacit admission by trooper bell that there is that there was no reasonable suspicion until that point of conflicting statements and when asked at the preliminary hearing wasn't the purpose of the stop satisfied once you had once you had the apparently valid driver's license he stated and i quote from what i do with the highway patrol my stop goes a little bit further  plenary hearing that's in front of a magistrate judge brown do we know that she the evidence that she had the six hours of the suppression and here's my question isn't it very significant if we don't know exactly what he asked and that's what's holding up wouldn't it exhibit of that hearing i know that that was a it was a consideration in the record for the court at that time the trooper bell stated it's just what i do with highway patrol it's interdiction criminal interdiction is what i do ok i was