it please the court my name is stephanie bond i represent the appellant in this matter angela ventura i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal and i will keep track of my time agent via the border patrol agent testified that he had no idea who he was looking for when he approached mr ventura in a neighborhood street walking along he was basically there searching for a truck there was no truck in the area in question yes ok detain her at all and she was walking she kept walking he didn't tell she couldn't keep walking or go anywhere  he asked her some question she answered them the case fostanes to say that it's ok to ask questions you don't have to tell people they don't have to answer them what question attention well judge i think the detention so we agreed in the brief that when he pulls up alongside her and asked her if everything was ok or it was something to that effect that i think is completely legal i think you can do that the detention began as soon as she said we're not doing anything wrong here and continued to walk away from him and he let or he no i mean he kept up with her paid and callous stop walking in and tell him where to go he didn't try and stop or well i agree judge but it's the fact that she was not able to go about her business she was happy to go about her business what about her business well i would disagree because she would about her business with him following her with a show of authority not allowing her and then of course we have the issue that her brother shows up to pick her hall i think is the boat with the case is probably most significant in the sense that there's a show of authority in her freedom of movement is being restrained so i think they really did the hard time understanding how movements being restrained she's walking i mean if i'm walking down the street and somebody is walking next to me has he restraining my movement now he's talking to her but that's a separate question right yeah and he's talking to her but he's not talking to her about anything involving the truck that he's investigating  he's just basically detaining her he's just basically harassing her at that point there's no reason for him to even be walking alongside her she's made it well known that she does need as assistance she is a one is assistance but he is continuing in a show of authority wearing his uniform wearing his gun and everything else he's continuing to follow her walk alongside her and not let her leave is basically what i that's where where we  not let her leave she was sleeping she was walking and he didn't tell her to stop or and or tell him that and she didn't say you know go away and leave me alone so i must have this is a very strange sort of detention never seen anything like it before well just see i kind of disagree that she didn't say leave me alone i mean as soon as she tells him we're not doing anything wrong and she can to she walks away that i think pretty much told him you're bugging me and i don't want you around me and instead of just continuing about his business looking for the truck he stops his car follows after her catches up to her and doesn't let her walk along like she wants to overlook i ask you this let's assume that you know this was not consensual is that did he have reasonable suspicion and even to stop them as an investigatory stop well judge i think so you could the government argued and i know the district court believed that there was a common knowledge type of let me ask you this question yes did he not know that there was a search on go on for the truck and drive as he did not know that he did know that there was an ongoing search for the truck ye is there a concept of collective knowledge that you can take the knowledge you will of these offices and imputed to him well judge i think this concept of collective knowledge is an interesting one because it doesn't seem in my research that this circuit actually agree whether collective knowledge applies to reasonable suspicion we know that it applies to probable cause to arrest but this court has is is a little i mean they basically court had said that some circuits within this court have agreed that law enforcement working together an investigation can have a collective knowledge for reasonable suspicion now  our knowledge system usually works where some where the person who does the stop doesn't have the knowledge but somebody who does have the knowledge tells them to make the stop well in the words says you know there are some women out and that's the reason why i don't believe that collective knowledge applies in this case is because there wasn't anybody who directed him to do anything they were out there looking for a truck he wasn't even looking for women now i mean obviously there well just i don't know that i can agree that he knows that there's drugs we know that noles like a dog who alerted on the truck but he knows that it was illegal he went through just the correct he knows it fl checkpoint and we know that no the dog does detect on drugs but he also detects on concealed humans so if the thought officer was walking along and asking questions he knows that someone refused to stop at secondary inspection and then disappeared from the highway then why doesn't that officer have at least enough suspicion to walk along and they ask questions and he doesn't get answers that satisfy him to to to detain them for more well judge i think that in order for an officer to do that they have to ask questions related to their investigation and he was not well doug as a surly i mean he can make observations i made suggests he had that a paralegal observed that there was sweating and breathing heavily one was carried duffel bag a little bit unusual for someone taking a walk in that area and he said there was more than just questioning that was involved here why would he not be it had to be mix to constitute reasonable suspicion well just the reason why the sweating and breathing heavily i think does not add to this mix at all is because this is tucson in july everybody is one hundred degrees even in the carrying duffel bag and nine hundred degree weather well judge so she's waiting for her ride to show up and that's i think well he has now that but but also tribal area right another i think the area that he found them in was the area where where the truck had as i understand it's a fairly small area that would be defined by the fact that the truck wasn't seen after a certain point and it was with in that the area in which a person would be if that you're right that's that's true but the street that she's on judge does not intersect with the street that they last saw t is as the crow flies a versus as you walk so as the crow flies i believe it was a short distance but the street that the truck was actually found on does not actually go to the street that mr ventura was found on she would have had to have gone through the desert she apparently did it appears well according to the jury's verdict yes i mean obviously the jury found her guilty so the jury believe that she must have tracked as good as or i mean honestly i am much more troubled by th road and this truck is awfully flimsy it is the only connection in the in the light most favorable to the government the only connection is knowles the service dog who alerts to something that he trained to look for and not necessarily marijuana and it has to be where i want to for this conviction right it has to be marijuana for this conviction agent west did not smell marijuana we know agent haley said when he found the bail that the smell was overwhelming and so you would have thought that if that bail were in that truck that it would have been smelled by agent west when he was speaking to the driver also we have the issue of your time's up so ok and i am trying to take you up about this stuff thank you bill giving the judgment in this case should be affirmed because they just were properly found that there was no fourth amendment violation and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's guilty verdict on all three counts but the purpose of the fourth amendment  challenges the interactions of even via an asian dodie with the defendant can really be split into three separate stages the first stage being when asian via first arrived on scene up until the point that asian dodi arrived the second  knew that there were two women for one thing that's going around and he pointed to recognize one of them yes right here in addition to recognize one of them as being the passenger he also stated that both looked familiar to the woman that he saw at the checkpoint so in terms of suspicion at that point doesn't seem to be much more that's correct or are we agree and would have further submit that not only did they have reasonable suspicion but at the point that he identified her as a passenger he had probable cause to engage in and conduct an arrest at that point happened before he came on the scene i think we agree and we would agree that with you from on the basis of your questions earlier it's seems that you would agree that the first stage they're w it was a consensual encounter there was no show physical force there was no job authority that implied that she was not free to leave there was no stop until there was a stop in this case and she held her hand he can't infer anything from anything that she didn't answer right because the whole point is that she has a right not to answer that's correct however it was a suspicious answer and i said during the rest of the circumstances so at that point applying the collective why we apply in the collective knowledge function i my understanding is that that applies if there is some communication between the people involved and if somebody had said to him you know there are  women walking along stop them that would be one thing but nobody gave him any reason to be stopping these people so why does he get to rely on the knowledge of other people that he didn't have any connection to i mean including even the indication that he's supposed to be looking for to women even if we discount what's what he didn't know personally and just on what he had personally we have i understand but i want to i am i wrong about what the collective knowledge doctrine works doesn't only operate when in fact there is some they don't have to communicate their knowledge but they have to communicate that they have knowledge and do the source something i mean but here he just he had knowledge the collective knowledge doctrine works to the degree that he is imputed to him to know that they in fact had reason to think this truck had done something illegal even though he had no direct knowledge of that what should apply because of the fact that he knew that a truck had fled the checkpoint and signed knowing that imply that he didn't know that right that much it isn't pure just collective knowledge yes and knowing that a truck had fled the checkpoint he also knew that that contraband that truck is later found near where these women are found without honor and it there is marijuana found on the highway there's testimony establishing that this is this a highway is a known drug trafficking corridor or this is going from a rural area to a metropolitan area and we have two agents just fine to the fact that they have never seen marijuana for own in the middle of a highway like this so right after this this drug  and there and the truck acted illegally and there was some marijuana on the highway that's correct period so you have to get the marijuana on the highway into this truck i mean quite a bit something else in the truck but you have to this is also not a heavily a highway with heavy traffic this is a whole highway going through world desert so it's about six there's testimony that was about the six of ten cars per hour also as i said testimony that these agents were experience agents had never seen marijuana like that right in the middle of the highway right after trying to pull the checkpoint councils judge cool there's a point that you didn't mention that at least i thought i read somewhere so i thought that the marijuana found on the highway was wrapped up in some some think the job bruises or marks on it that indicated it had been tossed at the motion to suppress hearing but we're precluded from arguing that at trial ok thank you thank you the agents that the people searched the car did not find evidence of marijuana when they found the truck at least exceedingly flimsy i mean i've just never seen anything quite like it where there is no direct connection between this marijuana and that truck would something in it had something in it is later found without anything in it and two bundles of marijuana large bundles of marijuana found in the middle of a highway in this area that the chase it was conducted after they lost sight the marijuana marijuana was found further on down the road to address the issue of whether this could be a distribution charge in addition the fact that this is a known drug trafficking co r there's also the packaging this is paxson two different types of cellophane in a way that was indicative of both distribution and being traveled in a car that tells you what this was was different than packaging that would be for a backpack in case for example also just to address the the weight itself that this is thirteen year the jury found that this is thirteen point six kilograms of marijuana although counsel makes references to a state law it was permissible with medical marijuana card and in arizona  i would argue that a more relevant measure would be the federal sentencing guidelines and under chapter two the one point one one dose of marijuana for personal use is point point five grams now doing some some simple math of thirteen point six kilograms us about twenty seven thousand two hundred individual doses so we didn't need an expert witness to testify to the fact that this is a distribution amount not an amount that one person would use thank you very much of first provide the answers that you would ask that i was unable to do before so hey agent haley followed the car for eleven miles until the pursuit was terminated so we can estimate that the car was probably found about a mile to two miles after after that and it was three quarters of a mile from where the vehicle was located as to where mr ventura was located  so to give those answers the only other thing i would say your owners could you know i my time is limited i think the fact that this is a known drug lord or where this drugs was found actually kind of hits both ways i mean obviously you know the government was saying wall to known drug court or that these people were traveling drugs through we found drugs but really you look at it like it's a known drug court or so the idea that there are drugs that are found in this area would not be very surprising especially drugs that are found to be the amount of a backpacker and agent haley did say that this is an amount consistent with what backpackers would find when it comes to the scuff marks as judge gould was discussing it is true that the judge precluded them from speculating as to how those scuff marks got on the package but i would also say in one of the reasons why it was stipulated i mean it was precluded is because it could have also gotten on there by a car hitting it as a drove by it all we know is that there was some kind of impact with it and that's what caused the scuff marks so i do think that the sufficiency of the evidence was not there as it comes to relating the drugs to this vehicle because there was no connection between