violation and the question is whether the extension of the stop to investigate other criminal activity was warranted by reasonable suspicion just to be clear we're not contesting the validity of the initial stop and the government for its part is not contesting that in fact the stop was extended for the purposes of excess of investigating other criminal activity indeed the officer officer morales ski in this case made clear that he was looking for drugs and drugs from the beginning and that he asked travel related questions because he was looking for other criminal activity he's going is it your position that it was improper to ask travel related questions it's improper and under two conditions one if it extends the stop and two if there is no reasonable suspicion and i believe that this supreme court makes th there was that type of questioning and that's why rodrigo is particularly significant there was the initial stop and then of course read rega sent it back for a determination as to whether there was reasonable suspicion was a id and then they asked a bit of travel now is valid i already had extensions have it your questioning vats are of this van just a normal part of what you do in a situation without that being moment he answered then stupid travel then you get the question of whether he answers were sufficient to create suspicion i draw the line at the moment he begins to the travel related questions and that's based on rodrigo's again rodrigo says the typical questions for a stop are going to involve license registration proof or insurance and then running for warrants and importantly the the officer in rodrigo has did ask travel related questions where are you going where are you coming from but the court did not include such questions in their list of what is typical improper for a traffic related st we didn't go so far as to say that such questions were improper did it now but it strongly suggests that because we have facts where those questions are asked and then they don't suggest that those questions are proper i did purport to give a comprehensive list of just cited those is typical of questions asked properly asked to stop yes it is cited those as typical but the officer here acknowledged that his travel related questions were because he was looking for other criminal activity so the record as a matter of his also ok to ask where are you going only if there's reasonable suspicion of other activity and if it's not extending the stop now if something else is going on at the same time then the officer can ask these other questions so if it's not extending the stop the officer can ask these other questions but if it's extending the stop questions about where you're going where you're coming from what's the full name of the person you're going to be staying with that is completely cab driver indicated that he didn't know where he was going there was a concern about an abrupt stop which had meaning to the place officer the defendant mr carter was in the back of the cd has his head down his hands between his life he had some suspicion at that point for further inquiry correct if we take out the travel related questions and we just look at what he knew and what he'd seen up to that point we have a collection of  facts and let's take a look at those we have the abrupt stop that you're on or mentioned the officer said that well during an abrupt stop maybe some people are trying to conceal a weapon that doesn't make sense it would be the opposite if somebody was trying to conceal they would extend the length of the time that it takes to come to a stop that would give them more time to conceal so the officers rationale for the abrupt stop doesn't make sense and then we have the red bull the officer mention that there was a kid an energy drink that was present well of course this is a taxi driver he's driving for a living he's going to have something that would help him stay awake while driving he also mentioned the ringing cell phone but this was a cell phone that was in the front next to one of those cup containers next to the driver and did the district court focus on any was or just say the questions that were as immediately were normal questions is what i mean i don't it was his second year on a day that i don't think the district court focused in deciding that this was ok and any of the things w queue said were probably proper it was at the end that's correct your honor the district court concluded that it was proper to ask the travel related questions and that's where i think the district court analytically made it have focused just on the what the officer knew up to the point before the travel related questions began so it's your position that it's always improper to ask travel related questions for a traffic stop unless the officer observes something that gives him recently suspicion something else is afoot yes and unless it's not measurably extending the traffic stop so if something else is going on at the same time that's legitimately related to the traffic stop then the officer can when you're asking for somebodies id and they have to go and get a license for their papers and song how does it extend things if it the same time you were you gone what conceivably that would not your honor however in this case the officers testimony is clear he first asked for a driver's license and id and then he started asking where are you going where you coming from and he after he got after he got those that's correct he got that and then he started asking me the very detailed in intrusive questions about what's the name and address of the person that you were living with in than were down a line where are you going i don't know how you know that suggest you ask something else so that the question really is we have a first one was in an extension first he gets the other license registration then he starts asking travel it related questions and then he asks the driver newson to step out it's only at that point the officer burnham shows up at the moment you are asking questions during the time beat you would need to check out a license and use anyway we can see that would not be however he extended from that point when he started asking the travel related questions certainly up to the point that officer burnham arrived and then he gave officer burnham the idea to have officer burnham is in an extension to wait until be another officer come in have that person check things out i t was an extension under these circumstances he wasn't waiting for another officer officer burnham arrived on his own he had not he just happened to be driving away our argument is that what he should have done was wind blows else is going on that's part of the traffic stop then it's not measurably extending the stop is it an extension if it takes no more time then had he done that then that would have required well iran i think we're limited to the facts that we have in the case which is it now and it was extended because he was asking travel i hear your argument i'm not disagreeing with it i'm just asking whether  there are any cases or anything that suggests that if it would have taken three minutes to do that and instead of doing that he took three minutes to ask something else that is an extension we don't know how long it took to run i don't know either thank you all right thank you very much reserved two minutes for rebutt honour's my name is kevin doyle from the u s attorney's office in burlington vermont after officer murawski conducted a valid traffic stop that night in the manchester vermont area the developing facts provided abundant reasonable suspicion for officer murawski to ask those follow up questions ultimately resulting in really what was a very efficient investigation this is as your honour's know twenty one minutes from the time of the stop to the  later whether he could ask these travel related questions when ball was opposing counsel says have nothing to do with the traffic stop and extended the traffic stop even minimally so you know i have no disagreement with the fact that this is efficient it's a fact that once he started giving answers the answers were suspicious enough so he could ask the next question and the next question led to the next and all that is fine with me i just want to focus on this narrow point make your opposing counsel narrow but but he says open so your hon ultimately the traffic citation in this case was written for crossing the fog line but if you if you look back to the earliest development of the facts here at the time that officer is sitting in the median he's watching this car approach he's seeing this frequent lane change that's the first thing that kind of peaks his interest the car passes him and it has the handmade sign on the side it's that it does this lane change from the left to the right to the left as it's passing him he pulls out it changes yet again and now with this lane change it goes a substantial distance over the fog line the reason why i give that background your honor is because while it is a fog line violation that's ultimately written up the officer has a reasonable suspicion that he could be dealing with impairment and i think that that leads directly and in a very relevant way to his questioning the driver as well as mr carter about where they're coming from and where they're going to this could be someone who's fatigued is crossing over the fog line is also could be someone who's impaired due to alcohol or drug use where they're coming from and where they're going to your honor in the government's view would be highly relevant to the question you're here that this whatever it may be in another case in this case with travel related questions of both parties of a passenger as well was related that's correct your honor and as i think the court records show the court did comment generally as i recall your honor i mean the types of questions that  the passenger appropriate well i think i think this is kind of that cascading development of facts your honor you know when when officer murawski first asks the questions of the driver and he's getting some questions that don't sit well  and are generating some concern then he turns to the passenger because it's interesting to officer murawski that the driver doesn't know where he's going so then he turns to the passenger to say well where are you going i think that is the said way around or that leads to the officer moment i certainly don't want to belabor the facts and of course is where the facts of the case but there this is not the nervousness that one might expect when a police officer pulls over another car and know that point has been raised by the appellant in his brief this is really uncontrollable shaking by both the driver and the passenger in the back this immediately sends officer murawski reasonably on on the line of questioning that he continues to pursue with them and with each following ultimately recovering the drugs and so for that reason your honor this is this is a rodriguez well i want to say it's not a rodriguez issue ultimately because we have the reasonable suspicion here that is lacking in the rodriguez decision a district cou driver was on drugs or alcohol you do you is it your position that as part of a traffic stop it's permissible to ask those kinds of questions yes your honor yes one of the questions i also want to know is  how much does has been decided and how much of this is a new issue and the question as put by posing counsel would raise a new question about whether  where you're going and so on are who are least the first ones are appropriate extensions into selves if instead the questions were proper for reasons like the shaky or because of the spinning moving from lane to lane in different impairment then there are cases that speak to this and we can deal with impairment but in fact there was no testimony that the travel related questions were there to determine if there was intoxication and in particular i'd like to draw the court's attention to pillage one seventy three in the joint appendix where the courts addresses this issue and the says are regarding whether there is reasonable suspicion of an impaired driver he says i think that was ruled out almost immediately or doesn't seem to have been a feature that from the very beginning of the interaction between the officer in the driver the officer clearly did not think that the driver was impaired so that was ruled out immediately  was in your view the author of the officer authorized to ask when he observed the at nine thirty at night and out of state vehicle with a homemade sign that maybe was a gypsy cab  changing lanes repeatedly in that crossing two feet over the fog line was he authorized to ask simply license registration and then to give a citation and to do nothing more that's correct your honor in regarding the  change the officer acknowledged that this car had a left entrance on to route seven so of course it was starting out in the left lane as it passed the officer it shifted properly over to the right lane there is nothing suspicious you can ask the driver and the driver answers in a way that suggests that the driver doesn't know where he's going then i think it's probably perfectly sensible to be able to ask the passenger in a ta that you you or your previous argument was focusing on questions to the passenger but for me it's kind of interesting to know whether one can ask the driver of an out of state cabinet cetera et cetera et cetera beyond the i d s and so on where you go and that's completely unrelated to the purposes of the traffic stop so the answer is no and then insert your question about whether this is a new issue it is in light of rodrigo is this is a new issue because bridge regas certainly suggests that you can't go beyond the questions of license and registration then proof read surance thank you very much i think we have the argument thank you your honor we'll reserve