provided sufficient probable cause in this case unfortunately i must start by acknowledging an error in my discussion of the case of united states versus west as the government pointed out there were two suits search warrant affidavits in that case and affidavit which supported the search warrant for the g p s data of my client cell phone was still to bare bones to support probable cause in this case and here is a long on but i was two pages lying but the parts which related specifically to my client were very few and i named cabot enjoy informant but drugs twice from someone other than my client the name confidential informant said my client transported drugs from chicago to michigan and had my client's phone number the police also verified the fact that my client had prior convictions for drug distribution that was the extent of the affidavit and that does not provide sufficient cause to believe that my client was selling drugs at that time simply because an unnamed confidential informant was able to buy drugs from someone else other than my client there's no discussion of happened doesn't that purchase have less to do with a relationship between the informant and your client and more the groundwork or for a liability it does certainly establish some reliability that at least this person knew where he or she could purchase drugs but it doesn't have to provide any connection to why that person would have any information that's reliable about my client it doesn't talk about i saw my client  she saw them saw my client at at home with drugs in the presence of this person that they bought drugs from it doesn't provide any connection so clearly this person had some connection to the drug trade but it doesn't establish why this person have any reliable information about mr hunt so this was an affidavit that was used to emptiness search warrant for the cell tower records is that right for the g p s location data so should that make a difference that it wasn't a search warrant to search a home or some private place but rather was just seeing g p s data i don't believe so your honor g p s data can provide information about where someone is traveling into private places places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and i believe that that for the period of time here we're talking about a thirty day warrant the period of time the fact that the the phone assuming it's  person is going to go with him into private homes into doctor's offices into any number of other places you might travel but what would the g p s data show would it show that he was in dr x s office or would it show that he was in two mile radius or something like that certainly show that he was within the vicinity of that sort but you wouldn't have a clue whether he was in dr x s office or the video store you would be able to get fairly close your honor so i think you would certainly be able to make some inferences about where he was traveling is is you talked about probable cause being required is it is the test probable cause or is it reasonable suspicion and what case would you rely on for that i y believe that the the test here is probable cause since they're applying for a search warrant this is not a probation officer going to do a search this is a drug interdiction team applying for a warrant not relying on the fact that he's a probation or and or i'm a parolee so any warrant regardless of whether it is for g p s data or like what if it were seeking cell tower information in my view your honor it still provides information that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and it still can track data which show your daily activities and the things that you're doing in your life and in my view all of it should require probable cause and can you give me a case to support your view well  in united states versus skinner this court said you could obtain g p s data for a shorter period of time to track someone who is traveling in public their own fares just as the police may conduct surveillance and without a warrant as long as you're in a public space but the the idea is that the longer the police are using such data to track where you're going the more likely it is that they're tracking data into private homes or other private locations areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy so along ace a scale of a somewhat sliding scale of we expect the longer the data is collected the more likely you are to be going into private areas and this was a thirty day wasn't doesn't it matter here that the the what was it issue was his traveling approximately two times a month or every other week outside of the state when that was in violation of the conditions of his parole it don't think it matters here your honor because they were they weren't investigating a violation of his parole they were in vet investigating drug activity in here to i guess the question for me is if the accusation and the purpose of the warrant is to see whether every other week he goes to chicago where supposedly he picks up drugs how practically could that be evaluated with out having a period that it least extends over a two week time crying well they have other methods of attempting to find some other information to corroborate that that's exactly that this person's information is correct and some of those mother you just say they can't get a warrant that mall even if it's a part of the investigation in the accusation is travel every other week i think they might be only get a warrant this long if they had more probable cause to back up the affidavit in the first place if they had more information about how this confidential informant knew this information particularly about mr hunt that he that that's in fact what he was doing but it doesn't provide any information indicate that this informants suppositions about mr hunt are reliable with respect to him i think you could get a warrant for a two week period of thirty day period if you've got more to back it up in the first place but with what they have here no i don't think they had probable cause to get a warrant for that stretch of time and no you have some other points you probably want to get to i do your honor but if you're interested in this one i'm more than happy to talk about it also under rodriguez i believe that the vehicle here was seized for longer than was permissible under the fourth amendment without developing for there reasonable suspicion we know it's undisputed that this was a pretextual stop which is of course permissible as long as there is a traffic infraction being investigated and being actually investigated during the period of time when the vehicle was seized did did they know at that time that mr hunt had violated his parole condition by traveling out of state they knew that his phone had traveled out of the states did he admit that he didn't wasn't there a question that was asked where have you been after the stop there is and then the answer was over we were at a family event in chicago that's what his daughter said his daughter is wife one of the friends right as injuries right so at that point don't they know that he has violated his parole and how can they be unlawfully extending the stop well because they were their protection lead to investigate the traffic infraction of ms hunt that was the testimonial i do understand it was a pretextual stop but once there is this admission by a family member that oh yeah we were in chicago and the officers knew that he was not supposed to be in chicago because he was a parolee then even if there is an otherwise unlawful extension of the stop to get the i suppose it could have been your honor but that would have been a somewhat likely occurrence with a car with two children his wife his daughter shopping bags in the back in addition to the fact that they had indeed been to a baby shower and to back up the story of the two adult females in the frenzy i see your red light is on if you want to continue that's fine or if you want to save your time for rebuttal that's fine i will save my time for a bottle thank you the morning honors it please the court steven baker on behalf of united states i want to start with the search worn information the court was speaking with mr hans counsel about before there was ample probable cause for this search and that what they applied for  in this case the investigators in this case had a reliable informant would given them information and that reliability had been tested to two days prior with two separate controlled purchases that they were controlled purchases for other people does that make a difference it makes a difference in terms of the degree of information about the individual about which the affidavit is is asserting information but it doesn't make a difference what it does make a difference most to for the purposes of the confidential informant is the reliability there was testimony from detective hall at the hearing that to come to controlled purchases is often a shorthand within the state court in muskegon county for reliability of a confidential informant and that's exactly what detective paul was asserting with his affidavit in this case here two days prior to this that same confidential informant had gone through all the rigors of a controlled purchase had been observed by officers had been provided confidential funds had purchased controlled substances on two occasions that it worked out and that information given by that confidential informant was not  y tested but proven on the two prior days that gives evidence at that confidential informant can be tossed trusted although it is perfectly possible that a confidential informant could have it out for an enemy and could not have it out for these two other people that a confidential informant was dealing with and then make up things about the enemy who had pathetically here is mr your honor that's that's correct and that is possible which is why the court requires probable cause requires testing that informant in this case what detective paul did for corroboration was detector test mr hunt's criminal background he was actually on parole for the same offense the confidential formant is alleging that he's committing the confidential informant also gave additional information in depth information about mr hunt saying roughly every two weeks he goes for a large amount of heroin and cocaine that's relatively specific in terms of what he's alleging that he goes to chicago and it's also important as the core pointed out in questions to defense counsel that mr hunt is he's alleged to go to chicago what are they asking for here in terms of this war it's the nexus of the warrant to the exact information there after the location of his cell phone and the source also had m what they're trying to track here is exactly the veracity of the reliable informants information when does he go to chicago the location information of that cell phone will indicate exactly that you agree that probable cause is the standard rather than reasonable suspicion for this type of search warrant i do for a search warrant seeking g p s but under scanner that is not required in all situations i agree for the purposes of this case and the arguments that were advancing from mr hunt's case because  was sought for that is actually department's policy right now we seek warrants for g p s information on phones in the department of justice but that is not the precedent of this court skinner allows for other situations where there might be situations where g p s information as the court indicated not being highly specific to the area that it's not needed we are not asking the court to reconsider that that situation we are presenting the facts of this case to the court today given the facts that were presented in the four squares of that warrant there was probable cause found here in the magistrate judge had reason to believe that the location information of mr hunt's phone would be valuable to the investigation and that's borne out by how the the investigation actually played they watched the phone to see where it went and when he came back from chicago not on  cajun but on two separate occasions each time they acted on the information it was the second occasion on which he was found with his family members in the car in the search on september thirteenth that led to the recovery of the heroin the cocaine that brought mr hunt before the court what about the issue that case your honor and the reason is because rodriguez was a case of a cold stop as the corporate out in the direct questioning of the defense this was a protection will stop there was reasonable suspicion when they pulled the car over the information of the investigative team already indicated that mr hunt a parolee about whom a confidential informant reliable confidential informant had indicated that he had traveled to chicago to get drugs multiple times per month had actually been to chicago for a short amount of time several hours that day and driven back given that information that was reasonable suspicion for the stop on that information alone but that reasonable suspicion for the ongoing drug investigation is actually overlaid with pretextual stop in this case as there was evidence in this case and the video showed the district court interviewed there was reason for the traffic stop in the first place mr hunt's daughter had been driving in the left hand lane for several miles for a mile and a half to two miles to the testimony of trooper bove and at the district court and then when she traveled into the right hand lane she crossed over the center line several times so we were to traffic violations that he stopped her for in the course of those traffic violations in less than ten minutes he approached the car spoke to the people in the car where they verified the information they'd been to chicago that day the trooper who was making the stop provoking was actually familiar with mr hunt he had the information from the investigative team but he also knew that mr haunted been on parole and had been a part of a separate search of him and week before knowing that he was on parole and was forbidden from leaving the state while they're in meeting they've been to chicago all of that is building so when is it your argument when you have a perpetual star that is overlaid with other factors like or in this case you don't have to comply with the reasonable time frame it would take to investigate the stop it cell that you have unlimited term to not unlimited time your honor no not at all my argument is that the reasonable suspicion in this case loud for the more than reasonable time that occurred here and there are two separate reasons for that reasonable time i would argue to the court though this is not the factual scenario completely here based upon the traffic stop alone based upon the left hand lane driving and the crossing over with the stop we were within a reasonable amount of time for a normal traffic stop here what trooper but is the test what is the reasonable amount of time for a normal traffic stop or is it whether the trooper here had completed or should have completed all of the activities necessary to give a ticket to the driver and the argument that i understand the defense is making is that this stop was extended beyond that in that there this sort of does altering type thing that was allowing more time for the drug dog to show up the argument is that the amount of time should be justified by the reasonable suspicion it should be a reasonable amount of time based upon the suspicion at issue on any given sop if this stop were merely a traffic stop your honor trooper bogan was behaving exactly as he should and completing his process in the time that he should but that is not what was going on here it wasn't just  traffic stop the test is whether the reasonable suspicion of the officer investigating has enough time behaves reasonably in terms of his response and the investigation to fit within that time and in this case with the ten minutes total before the canine shows up in alerts to the dog it was well within that time he was also you know if the officer had said well i guess it's really not a traffic problem but you're going to wait here because i've got a canine unit coming i'll sit in my car you sit in yours and we're gets here will complete this we've been appropriate if the canine it arrived an immediate order within the a reasonable amount of time given the suspicion in the case your honor yes it would and what a reasonable amount of time for that to happen would be is for this court to decide but i would argue to this court that the ten minutes in this case would have been sufficient but to try to understand your answer to judge drenches question if the officer had not been attempting to check the records of the three adults in the car but had if the officer just gone back to his police car and sat there waiting for the canine are you saying that ten minutes is a reasonable amount of time for a canine to appear and therefore that would be fine under my hypo under your hypo i believe ten minutes is reasonable your honor but i don't so it doesn't matter in your view whether the officer was checking the records because there was reason of both suspicion based on the parole violation runner i don't mean to be use absolute saying it doesn't matter what the officers did you're correct there needs to be activity ongoing for the set not only that textual stop but the pretext will stop he needs to be hit behaving in a way that is typical of a stop he needs to be not only protecting himsel but they don't need to be detained an unreasonable amount of time and if they're just sitting there with him with nothing left to do that would be true ok and i thought that was part of the defense argument was that the officer was duly extending the checking of the records and that that could be told could be understood by look listening to and looking at the video which had desolate tori typing you're on i think you've explained the defense argument at all thank you i disagree with the facts of that argument i think that that officer was diligent in his preparations and is typing see if three adults in the car that he's checking you don't just type in terms of reviewing criminal records and criminal histories of individuals you also scanned through information he did all that within the five to six minutes while he's in his call after speaking with him additionally he had reasonable suspicion based upon mr hunt's status as a parolee and it's travel outside of the state so does that reasonable suspicion let's let's say past the size that that's the key feature here does that mean then that the officer can call for a drug be planning to arrest mr hunt because of his parole violation but then wait for the drug dealer to appear to find drugs or does that matter i mean you could say that they would impound the car they would find the drugs anyway or could have various theories you could under your hypothetical your own reply to the facts of this case there's an ongoing investigation within the contents of that car and the individuals in that car anyway the officer has probably cause to arrest him for violation of his parole which he knows he also knows in the context of this case that he's part of a wider narcotics investigation in fact trooper bova knew that that investigation had been a week before where there'd been a prior stop of mr hot and there were no drugs found that exactly did hunt consent to the search and that one he did and mr hunt by by conditions of his parole has content consented to a search of his person and his property at any time requested by a peace officer or parole officer which is one of the reasons the government argues that he doesn't have the fourth amendment standing to advance in this case either but in this case continuing with your honor's hypothetical for what's going on and what he's doing though he has probable cause to arrest mr holland there are two other adults in that car as  gets there he has some knowledge of mr hunt but he doesn't know how much mr johnson before his daughter is in on the information that they have or even if there are drugs in that car at that time he's continuing that into investigation and because of the information that not only leads to the cause to arrest parole violation which is something the week before they had done because of the ongoing investigation that reasonable suspicion in that instance under your honour's hypothetical continues because he's still investigated there might be drugs in this car consistent with the information that the team has that's one reason the mr hunt to chicago and we don't know how many people in this car aware of that what we do know is that the information on the car doesn't allow for any of these people to drive the car and so he's investigating those things at that time and the best and next best bit of information he can ask for is probably a canine sniff of that car interestingly your honour's the week before they he and sergeant harbutt had also asked for a canine to come to the scene on september seventh the canine was more than ten minutes out when they finished searching the car and so they let mr hunt go for the sake of the covert nature of the ongoing and narcotics investigation and because it would have been unreasonable the officers even testified they were aware of court rulings can't just hold people the way for a dog so they let him go on september seventh they had searched his car pursuant to his consent but on september thirteenth the dog was in route and you still running the background on new individuals who were in the car who at that point part of the investigation as well is the record indicate who was the renter of the car and what that person's relationship was to any of these people is that in the record is in the record your honor the exhibit from the enterprise runnel and testimony about that exhibit was in it was a patricia wilford she was not any of the individuals in the car and there was no testimony about her relationship to any individual in the car what there was testimony about was that the rental agreement did not authorize other drivers and there was testimony from detective paul about a subsequent search of mr hunt's car where he had leading up to their trip to talk to an individual under as a separate it's in the record but it's it's spelled phonetically in the record under his save the same name in his phone so it's patricia woolford and then it's that there was conversation about picking up a rental car but the agreement does not allow for anyone else to be driving the car and it was the agreement in the car it was your honor which is one of the issues that this court has raised to be availability of that agreement would have it have to play into the standing of the individuals in a rental car even if they're not authorized possessory interest and could advance fourth amendment standing the imp part of the government's argument on standing is it applies to specifically to mr hunt we're not asking about his wife we're not asking about his daughter we're not asking about his two grandchildren sitting next to him in the backseat he is a passenger in a car for which no one in the car has a lawful possessory interest in the car in the terms of the rental agreement he therefore underbox has no standing to advance the fourth amendment claims in the search of the car additionally even though under as a passenger he would have standing to raise his own detention mr hartington as this court knows from his parole status and as mr hunt knew from his parole status as he displayed the week before had no right to object to his detention for a lawful search because if he was a officer or on one other issue i think there's some concern some appropriate concern about whether his statements were coerced by saying to his daughter that we sent here that in that way the record in this case does not reflect that that's the way that information came to mr hunt at all what is reflected in the record from detective hall's testimony where he couldn't recall whether he'd raise the issue with the defendant at all and that was the only testimony on the issue what detective hall  did say is that in such circumstances where his investigative team finds children in the proximity of the transmission of large amounts of drugs they are under obligation to refer the case to c p s he did not say that he threatened mr hunt with that at all he did not say that he said hey thank the record does not reflect the mr hunt hurt it detective paul specifically testified that he did not recall whether he said that or not to mr hunt he did say that it's common procedure in cases where we find large amounts of narcotics in the proximity of children we have to refer it to c p s detective hall's testimony was that he'd have to do that it wasn't a threat it he believed that they'd done that here there was then information proffered to the court based upon information we received at the district hearing from the other investigators that the children went home with with the grandchildren went home with their mother that evening after all the investigation but the important part there your honour's i agree with you that would be coercive if it were threatened detective paul spoke to mr hunt back at the police station after he'd been arrested after the drugs have been found and asked her he had already confessed to trooper bove and that there were drugs in the back of the car none of that was preceded by any information about child protective services and indeed detect did not threaten the mr hunt at all with that information he simply testified that that's something he'd have to do and honestly your honor if a one in a three year old are in a car while someone is transmitting over one hundred grams of heroin and over four hundred grams of cocaine s should be involved to make sure that they're safe i think that that consideration was taken those children home with their mother the information in the case as the defense pointed out indicated that their mother had no knowledge of the drop the drugs in the car and mr hunt indicated the same thing but that the protection and the safety of the children is not an assessment other than an immediate assessment for detective hall and his team to make that's a child protective services assessment which is why they make the recommendation additionally your honor in answer to your question it was mr hunt that created the scenario that creates that that very coercion that the court is where of and and worried about for him he's the one that arranged for his family to go with them and he put them in the jeopardy of that sort of risk where child protective services would become involved by his activity did he feel guilty about that i imagine exactly as you pointed out that a grandfather would but maybe that's one reason that he felt compelled to his activity and what was going in the car to protect his other family members that he had endangered with that is not just cook that's not coercion by investigators that's the individual defendant's guilt compelling in a way that often leads to confessions in your  i'll start with mr baker's last point the testimony of the accusor was he could not recall if you mentioned that fact to mr haim during the stat we don't know if he did because there's no objective dashboard camera video evidence it was turned off by the know we know what mr hunt we there was no testimony about that at at the record at the hearing however the dashboard camera issue is extremely problematic for a number of the issues in this case the officer the dashboard camera is there specifically to record what goes on so we know of course later you're really going into an issue that was not raised earlier in this argument so i think you should rely on your brief for it as opposed to bringing up a new issue now i guess your honor and in my view what mr baker talks about is being the totality of the circumstances actually weighs in favor of there being less reasonable suspicion and not more this officer had stopped my claim this is the third stop in under three weeks of my claim the stop prior was also after the g p s data had said that mr hunt's phone had been to chicago the car searched fully nothing is found his parole even though they found nothing but certainly supports the idea that perhaps mr hunt was violating his parole perhaps he was visiting in someone in chicago but it doesn't back up the idea that he's picking up drugs in chicago when they follow when they know the car is recently returned and they stop it thinking that they're going to find something because he's just been back from chicago and the fact that they left without waiting for the drug dog is really of no import since they'd stolen search the car they needed direct i get that point they there was no need to wait for one so they had these to prove and then you have to stop before that before they get the warrant where the same trooper had stopped my client and the vehicle searched at that time as well and also found nothing so the pretextual nature of the stab i don't think helps here or the formation of reasonable suspicion i think it actually hurts that we again have indeed indications by the  statements made by the women in the car we have what they can see through the windows that actually supports the story that they've just been to a family baby shower together that they're traveling with family it decreases the likelihood they're going to find something in this car and that increases it country when mr baker says the other one of the other problems for the extension of this staff is that again the testimony of the officer he admitted on cross examination that he was outside of the vehicle at the time that the canine deputy arrived which indicates he wasn't doing anything any more to you and that's at page eighty three ten in this record was he outside because he saw the canine vehicle coming up or are you saying that the record shows that he was outside just looking around waiting he acknowledged he was outside when the deputy arrived that's the exact testimony he said on direct that i could see the deputy arrive in my  mirror i had he says and direct i had just completed running the records of these adults and if you if he said as you just said i could see the deputy arriving in my rear view mirror that suggests that the officer was in the car it down and got out because he saw the canine arriving while the testimony is somewhat contradictory because he admits on cross examination that he was outside of the car which from the audio is what it sounds like to me but of course we don't know exactly what happened that's the testimony in any event though he he's clearly waiting for the deputy and causing these tasks to take longer than they need to he admitted he never did anything further to investigate  driving infractions of mercedes hunt after asking her the initial question of she'd been drinking she clearly had not been drinking he did nothing further to investigate that he took no steps to write a ticket all he did was run the records he had extensive and unusual experience with this particular individual he had stopped him three times in under three weeks they had been watching him closely he knew this guy's record fairly well i'm imagining at that point didn't need a lot of time to review it he had extensive history with mr hunt it did not he they testified it would not take very long to run the records of people of the other occupants in the car this stop and when you listen to the stop itself it is the world's slowest typing what what what what about the idea that because there was reasonable suspicion based on the parole violation of mr hood that there is more time allowed because they could arrest mr huhne and then for the parole violation certainly they could have and then have the drug dog come up as they're arresting mr hunt right i don't think so because they they certainly can arrest him for the parole violation they've got a reasonable suspicion of that but that doesn't again help them i think get into that car with  suspicion he left the state to go to a baby shower with this family and that's a problem by elation but at this point they don't have reasonable suspicion that he's going to have drugs in that car based on the entire totality of the very unusual circumstances we have here i mean usually you don't have officers that have this much experience with a particular individual but we do here and here i think there's no reason to suspicion that you're going to find drugs in that car they want to arrest him for violating parole go ahead but that's not when that would take time to do i assume it takes time to arrest somebody and so during because the drug dog arrives in ten minutes and had they done that this would be a different argument but they didn't do that they relied solely on the we're investigating mercedes time for this traffic violation and running the records in the car and that they sat they they sat on that and that's what we have here your reply just as well thank you very much thank you both for your argument the case will be submitted with the court called the next