we have three agents or officers participating in this case who all engaged in sloppy behavior which which leads to the problems we have in this case with the government showing reasonable suspicion and  probable cause first of all we have agent jones who's an experienced agent with several years of experience but he still has a written reprimand for sloppiness in another case with  evidence and as an example the sloppiness in this case he could even say with the number of tips or if that were involved in this case you know he first it was two then it was three and then he finally said well i guess i assume that it's t improper because he only could touch and carry the bag in order to search for weapons because it was a terry stop and may i ask you a question your time is so short this is just also speaking hurt argues simon the drug detection dog alerted to his carry on bag because one of the narcotics officers jones touched and handled it before simon sniffed it challenge below and if not is this argument waved on appeal well your honor it wasn't specifically argued below but the government has not brought this up in his answering brief he has not brought up and the officers testimony is that basically he was just he was helping he wasn't basically taking possession of the bag but he was helping because it's now kind of attached to mr contreras and it instead of like swinging freely like you normally would have a carry on bag and the district basically said he was helpfully trying to untangle the bag we don't have what's wrong with that finding even if you was trying to help untangle the bag the problem mood is he could have contaminated the bag and this is the government's own witness testified the dog simon alerts to odors you know and of course he could a lot of things could have happened he could have deposited drugs and he could been tangled i mean there's a lot of hype about it also is there any evidence here that would upset the district court's findings well the fact that the agent should have been touching the bag at all and by touching at the agent contaminated it no no no he's not supposed to touch it because there's because he might be contaminated but it doesn't follow that he did contaminated because he was there was a reason why he was touching isn't that the price but again you know the government has not responded to the argument that we raised in our brief they just said you know they don't even respond to the argument about it being a possible contamination and so you have any evidence what would we look to me place where what we're looking to hear on the find and we of course we're looking to no one search issues but we're looking to the district court's findings for clear air is there anything in the record that would support your view other than lawyer argument or speculation well the facts that there were no drugs found in the bag even though the dog alerted positively to the bag so somehow that bag was contaminated with the odor of drugs and  the government's expert witness testified mr dr murray the dog only alerts to the odor not to the drugs themselves so somehow the odor of drugs got on that bag but there is was there were drugs in other  like luggage of the right in those bags the dog alerted negatively to those bags so you know that again that also brooke kind of brings up the question of how reliable is simon as a drug dog harris the supreme court held a dog's alerts may be called into question if he's working under unfamiliar conditions what is your best case factually that supports your contention that somehow i was working under unfamiliar conditions all harrison self support and again the facts of the case as simon's handler and the mr not them are the certifier testified he doesn't normally work in this kind of situation in fact i think the amount of time he spent in this kind of environment was three point seven five percent  and so even if simon could be found reliable in most circumstances he was working in an unfamiliar circumstance here which again undermines his reliability and in additional the records show that he only had tested luggage and point one six percent so these were definitely unfamiliar circumstances you know harris also goes on to caution us about over reading misses in the field and if you look at the miss here he may well have smelled odor we don't know i mean that may have well been an actual not a false positive but a document ed positive even though drugs weren't found in that bag so you know or it seems hard to challenge the dog when in fact what was found with the drugs in the carry in that bag right but it also means it could have been contaminated by something else in his that they could have with already talked about because we don't have any evidence of what could have contaminated it right right and i mean i you know if we had evidence that the officer might have planted something which we've seen and ryan cases that would be good evidence right well i would just go back to the fact that one agent and maybe even two were touching the bag and again going back to the  ok is it that there was never probable cause because that dog was not reliable was it that they were the that they shouldn't have touched it and we are to assume that they can do that without any evidence that they can that the officer contaminated well they shouldn't have touched it and therefore that undermined what do you do i look at that undermine simon's reliability because they did something they weren't supposed to do they were touching a bag that's clearly it please the court good morning tom look for the united states your honor the united states position is that this was the date of march twenty fourth two thousand and fifteen an investigatory stop that then turned into a probable cause reason to when the defendant didn't go into the baggage claim area instead went right walked straight out and went to the curb area even though you have checked bags and they determined that he had checked bags that the defendant continued to turn around and look at the area look behind  had the agent explained that to him was a counter surveillance the defendant was looking to see if law enforcement officers were were around they have detailed information on the tip on the bag that was supposed to  one of the f d a that says they confirmed with the airline that it was on their what was it that confirmed because on his name tag it says on kind of this and his name of course is contrarius so my question was do is really any record that contrarious at the airport it was sent to agent jones agent jones reviewed that and believed it was similar in appearance to the siege of the criminal justice information sheet rap sheet that they had in hawaii it was a photo more than the name that was confirm a photo and the physical description that they previously had and jones agent jones verified that when he saw him come off the jetway and from there then of course that was added to by the jones walking up to the honor including the tipster including the individual was interviewed and said he bought drugs from person in the black tow truck assuming that simon was under the liable under the totality of the circumstances detain and for an investigatory stop so we can see that the dog alert is essential for the probable cause but we believe also your honor we submit to the court that the record of simon and arnold  handler is beyond reproach that the district court and through that the defense had adequate opportunity to challenge the reliability to challenge the professed performance they could they subpoenaed they put that into their into the nerve exhibits of the seizure logs from simon that was exhibit five and they have they had the opportunity to question the expert that we called officer excuse me a retired officer who is the california narcotics canine officer certifying individual that had seen worked with simon before work with ya before and had certified him the month before in february of of twenty fifteen we can see that that was needed for a probable cause determination to do the arrest and we submit there was that besides what i've mentioned you had an uncooperative individual that was  walking away he is one of the court's questions was well you have checked bags while you were walking away he said well i had to i had to go to the car or the truck to get something to cut the string that held my bag to the to the to my side  probable cause in your view when the dog alerted on the on the bag you're on that's and then of course by and by then they did the arrest and they found the slip of paper in the wallet with a name  upon reasonable suspicion that then blossomed into probable cause thank you thank you your hon bought drugs from interests so i don't know where this is coming from now where mr muir look at saying that there was evidence before him that somebody had bought drugs from country of us and then the fact that trist was walking away and was deemed to be uncooperative that's wrong because he was told he was free to leave and under florida versus bostic and united states versus pointless if somebody is told they're free to leave they can leave then state that he's uncooperative and out provided some of the probable cause for the search warrant is incorrect as the government has conceded really this all comes down to whether the dog sniff was reliable or not because without the dogs and of course no probable cause we would argue we've argued that the dog sniff was not reliable under these particular circumstances even if simon was a  normally and therefore we're asking the court to vacate and remand with instructions to grant and suppression of them thank you it's just argued of united states versus contrarious has submitted thank both of you for your arguments this morning will now hear argument in united states versus