suspicion standard as first a reasonable articulable suspicion and second not a quote get healing unquote or quote hunch unquote what the officer said it one point in his testimony in this case directly contrasts with that he testified quote i guess i can't articulate everything that was crossing my mind at that point but there was something i knew that there was something that was not right about the stop counsel was stopped due the check that was completed and when the officer went back to do the criminal background check you had a new question and that was one of the totality of the circumstances did the o then have reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking to extend the traffic stop that's really what we're talking about and yes ok i think if you're on a so under those circumstances and you look at all of the things that he was dealing with there on this really need to highlight everything with the you know the phones the the lack of identification of the female the cost of the rental et cetera et cetera et cetera why didn't that constitute reasonable suspicion in the second part if you will of this stop well let me let me start with some of the general standards your honor what the case is this court say is first of all there's a number of cases  recognize that you need more than broad profiles that cast suspicion on broad categories of people you need something that separates out the person who stopped for the purpose of person in this case who's being detained beyond just the  mission and so what factors do we have like that here is one way of looking at this case well coming from california isn't that sort of factor that covers ten percent of the people in the union and in fact later in the excerpt he's telling the passenger it's not just california but oregon and washington in nevada so it's the whole west coast using air freshener isn't that sort of factor one of the cases i cited a king case in the brief talks about a proliferation of things that hang from people's rearview mirrors nowadays driving on interstate ninety four isn't that sort of factor that's one of three main cross country routes through montana driving a rental cars and that sort of factor lots of people drive rental cars we don't divide and conquer our case clear that we look at the  identify so i just want to hear your best case or your best argument in response to that i do cite a case in my papers that basically says having three cell phones instead of two for two people is deserving a very little weight i believe some language and you're going back to two trying to break this down the crush it is when even if for even you've all of the elements who are innocent or could lead to one i mean that's really the only now i agree at the end you have to look at all together but to get back to your question judge the three cell phones instead of two i just don't think for you know what was only three replaced with a more modern phone there's other people who sometimes carry two phones maybe someone who does drywall work in gets called on various dry wall jobs might want to get you know have one for his contractors and one first people that the  thing that really got highlighted by the officer was this idea that it was a track phone because tracked phones i guess you don't have to supply identification to get him but he didn't know this was a track phone he just made an assumption that a flip phone was counsel with respect and you need to argue your case the way you want but it certainly for me and i think you're hearing it from the rest of my colleagues as we look at the totality you're picking out the weak links in the totality you haven't talked about all these things but are we dealing with the fact though that once you went back to check the criminal history he had a new mission if you will using the road ragers language the question is did he have reasonable suspicion and when you start looking at the totality of all of these things and not just the little stuff that you mentioned but the lack of a dedication the cost of the rental car the no observable luggage  fact that the young woman said she was going to get a job had no identification which would probably meant you couldn't get a job the fact he said he was a dry wall was a clean car and never so little stop individually but when you  reasonable suspicion i don't think your honor because a number of those factors you just went through really weren't things he knew about no luggage in the car he didn't know that all he saw was the back seat he couldn't see the cargo area so that says no factor because he didn't know there was minimal luggage in the car on the on the cost of the rental and in particular the length of the rental which is what made him suspicious yeah that's an unusual fact i agree that separates mr johnson out from other people but a drug trafficker would rent a car like this for three months it was decided for eight hundred fifty dollars a month for which which for two months would be seventeen hundred and for three months would be about twenty five hundred but remember the type of area we're dealing or with dealing with the boom town economy we're dealing with someone from california who might have only horns you gotta watch out for them yeah i know i know your honor and it's not just california it's watching nor good and  but you're dealing with a person going to a boom town economy this idea that you could buy a car for two or three thousand dollars you know i wouldn't buy a two or three thousand dollars car and then want to go on a seventeen hundred mile trip to mine in north dakota from bakersfield you know that kind of car you're to get might not make that trip i might not want to invest in a car long term because the employment in my not be sort of not real permanent employment because of the boom town economy so that the problem with that factor and the reason it didn't contribute anything at all is there was nothing to suggest how and why it tied into drug trafficking other factors the prior conviction of the passenger was something he didn't know about until he'd already extended the stop that's thousand minutes in the minute counter and he decided mr johnson was not impaired at about eleven thirty or twelve and the minute the case the force runs from the time that the officer  yes and i'd even give the government your honor that it probably goes until he goes back and decides mr johnson is an impaired member he goes back to the car and decides mr johnson is an impaired i give the government that but at that point once he decides mr johnson isn't impaired that's when the mission of the traffic stops stops and he doesn't have any business asking these additional questions where he gets a little more information he doesn't have any business waiting for a record check on the passenger now your honor i think mentioned the no identification of the passenger and i think one of the other factors about the passengers i don't think anything about that suggested drug trafficking and they're not even sure the government suggested it did they have this fallback argument about human trafficking but your hon this officer had no training and experience at all about human trafficking that he testified about and look at the factors he pointed to he pointed out what he called the significant age difference but nothing about why that suggested human trafficking and by the way i'm sorry we are we talking about a reasonable officer under these circumstances are we talking about what was inside this offices no we're talking about a reasonable officer and whether a reasonable officer would have had a reasonable suspicion based on training experience of human trafficking he had no training experience so i mean that's what's the reasonable officer was reasonable option all about the mann act for example and the reasonable officer highway patrol person think i guess reasonable suspicion to some extent is in the eye of the beholder but the reasonable officer beholder right but i don't he didn't never articulated why any of those factors he pointed to suggested human trafficking he never said any the age difference here is not like we had an eighteen year old we say do we focus on what he had to kill aided months later with a basis for the stop or do we place him on the scene and place a reasonable officer on the scene four factors that were arguably pointed to that he seemed to think suggested human trafficking the age difference which was twenty six and forty four not sixteen and thirty seven the passenger not having an idea id but he didn't say how that suggested trafficking the fact the passenger was going to work in his opinion it would be hard to find a work with that idea he didn't suggest how that showed trafficking that they'd only met recently he didn't suggest how that sho trafficking to me someone who's a working prostitute for a pimp would probably be someone he didn't hadn't met just recently the way he put it it's sort of stands out at one point this is an excerpt of record fifty three was quote for it is higher than a hunch it is higher than i just knew something wasn't right it is something that has to be able to be articulated on the human trafficking there was no articulation at all about how these factors showed  human trafficking or suspicion of human trafficking i'm trying to think there's any other factors your honour's mentioned that they haven't addressed the same remembers which of these factors  several the factors they didn't know about at the time he decided to extend the stop he didn't know about minimal luggage in the vehicle he didn't know about the passenger's prior conviction he didn't know about multiple trips from california so all those can't be considered at all  the reasonable suspicion totality because that's not information he had before he extended the stop the other factors this expensive car rented for a long time there was no suggestion about how that showed drug trafficking i would think drug   morning your owners in the morning the court john sullivan for the united states in this case the appellants arguments really are grounded in this hyper technical divide and conquer analysis that the supreme court has repeatedly instructed the lower courts to avoid in this case we do have to look at what the officer knew at the time the mission of the traffic stop ended in the government's view that's about twelve minutes and thirty seconds of the traffic stop video that's the point at which trooper quinn i'll ask mr johnson out of the call and was able to confirm that he was not impaired and so at that time everything that occurred after that had to be justified by reasonable suspicion in the government's view all of these factors we've been discussing this morning cut in favor of a finding that he had reasonable suspicion in this case when you talk about some of the more benign factors judgment the way i break them down is there are some general factors in this case and there are some specific factors the general factors are like he's coming from california in a rental vehicle on an interstate those things apply to a lot of people but the specific factors in this case are where trooper cornell's you know the alarm bells were really going off for him during the course of this traffic stop that's the cost of this vehicle that it's a large inefficient vehicle for making such a long trip mr johnson said that he was a dry waller but there was no sort of objective manifestation of anything in the car that would corroborate that you know why was he running such an expensive vehicle as a manual laborer if he's not hauling any tools if he's not you know using having a dry wall in the car dripper quenelle explained how that's a dusty dirty profession that would leave some trace in the vehicle if you were using it for his work car the fact that he's got multiple cell phones to pronounce that he believed it was a tract phone which mr johnson later confirmed at the thirty seven minute mark of the video the passenger drafty she obviously had no idea but is in the area looking for work it's pretty difficult to find legitimate work if you don't have any identification at all the fact that there was multiple air fresheners in this car and laundry detergent in the back seat i mean those are used as cover odors for drug traffickers and so you know you see those in a lot of vehicles but you don't see him in rental vehicles as trooper quintile testified to so all of those facts are unusual his human trafficking concerns obviously were here on an objective standard he didn't include that in his report at the time but there are objective facts that support his suppression hearing that he had concerns about human trafficking being that she had no a no i d there was a significant age difference and that they barely knew each other so all of those things are indicative of possible human trafficking as well so trooper cornell didn't have to just have suspicion of drug trafficking he had to have particularized an objective basis for believing that criminal activity was occurring which certainly includes both drug trafficking and human trafficking now i agree with my colleague that there are a couple of things the court should not consider or need not consider in the reasonable suspicion analysis that is that he had a me conviction trooper cornell learned that after the mission stop or after the mission of the traffic stop ended and also the fact that michael johnson said that it was his third trip since may so those things he learned after the mission of the traffic stop and the court need not consider those but when you take all of the factors both the general factors i've discussed in the specific factors that relate to mr johnson there is more than sufficient reasonable suspicion in this case to extend the nature of the traffic s page thirty one of appellate opening brief which says give those little weight remember we're not talking about a short term rental here of just a week where might not make sense to have an air freshener we're talking about a three month rental where you might want to have one i did want to go back to the dry wall employment because like the track phones that place are a factor where the officer was making assumptions that weren't based on his training and experience or any specialized training experience was making assumptions on his anecdotal experience he didn't have any specialized training about drywalling or contractor practices what he was doing was making assumptions based on his own personal experience with drywall and others he was quote familiar with unquote he could consider those i don't think in this context he could extrapolate to assume it was true of everyone first of all the assumption that all dry walls are dry wallers are independent contractors who have their own tools in the car no plus he didn't know for  all he knew mr johnson had tools in the cargo area that he couldn't see i think we let you go on a little bit extra the time is we thank you very much for your argument we will you know you want us to divid and we have that well in mind we think you and the government for the argument of the case just argued is submitted and the court stands in recess for the day thank you