related in scope for the purpose of the stop what we do in this case with what i view as judge croutons finding that almost from the get go that he was not questioning related purpose we do but we have a district court finding that his purpose was not to investigate the traffic stop but rather to investigate narcotics that structure him and i think that's considered grammar in light of ra questions were directed at drug trafficking not at the reason for stopping but even if that's the case and we've certainly allowed officers some leeway when there was let's call them did look at the three multi state with questioning her about you know what are you up to here well i think first of all i'm not sure what what is suspicious about that she explained that she lived and that washington that her children lived in orange cove california and she was moving to oregon that i don't think that that is something that raises some have to accept her answer i mean i understand that's what she said that but that evidence is also susceptible is it not to another more sinister implication which is that there may be criminal activity conquer approach but i think the law says we have to look at all of the factors are you asking us to rule as a matter of law that it was impermissible for him to ask questions with regard to clearing up the suspicion in his mind that she might be that if the officer can articulate reasons for his suspicion that we have to give some deference to a trained police officer who is supposed to be doing more than simply writing fits rafal and to well your honor you've also vehicle ownership she said that she had gotten the car from a fellow by the name of ruben who was a friend of her cousin she gave the cousin's name of the officer didn't write it down and she explained that's how she received it that was confirmed by the fact that what what their case is all about that was a case where where the where the the defendant could not name the owner there was no registration and there was no insurance card and here's what happened and this is in the  suspicious about where she is i mean the fact that she lives in different states how does that link how does nice we've been a whole bunch of innocent people i thought isn't pointing to drug trafficking the fact that the vehicle ownership that you borrowed the car from a border drug case that they reversed on where we had ten different factors in our panel has gone through and we strike factor one we strike factor two and we got pretty soundly slapped down by the supreme court saying we really mean couriers travel with no with very lightly with either no clothes or something in an overnight bag that even topped the the other way but he what he does and he has as many as many profile he said he had that and part of his base and what he would you he thought th the tailgater he asked questions and this court upheld prior to that time and present baron that questions asked during an investigative traffic stop have to be reasonably related to the scope of the justification for that stop and that an officer can broaden his line of questioning only if you notice there's additional suspicious factors which are particular lies so many questions to be asked about following too closely he didn't ask very many questions about following too closely or are he asked a number of questions he asked many the vehicle code section twelve five hundred has to be a licensed driver in the state or some other state and if yours is a resident of california a washington license would not be valid and she would not be that would not be  quoting language from terry and the terry language which was quoted and then the foundation for the holding and bring on it as in terry to stop an inquiry must be quote reasonably related in scope to the justification for other initiation have the following problem with this case and it's an odd problem way shows up some questions i'm girl holdings including under baron even though in fact they stray from let me see your driver's license and registration and even questions because i guess we think that those are the least conceivably reasonably related to the scope of the stitches the justification for the stop but what if as here we  officer's motivation was i'm trying to figure out things related to stop what about when we know that the officer motivation was not that but was rather i'm investigating enron stock from the moment i stopped this person your honor i believe that the officers subject of intense would not be relevant as long as his line of questioning as long as that attention is consistent with that which you can do i would submit that doesn't matter that he was in fact questioning pretty clear in his testimony and judge carlton makes it pretty clear in his finding that the reason he was asking these questions was this was in his mind a drug investigation now if this had not been a drug investigation some of those questions i think without question under a case law would be permissible questions might my issue is well what if we know that he's not asking these because they're within a permissible scope that's not his motivation to find out about this to stop his motivation and i want to see if she's doing drugs you honor my recollection of judge carson's findings are that he indicated that people leave that from the get go this officer was interested in every traffic stop as to whether or not there may be drugs involved the drugs mean transported but i don't believe that carlton ever concluded that that was the sole purpose for the questioning i don't believe that was ever a finding that carlton made just carlton did indicate that he thought that that was one of the officers purposes but i don't believe he indicated that ran from the reason for the stop two reasons for the question posed stop your honor let me let me elaborate it is the government's position that while judge carlton made that finding at the conclusion of the hearing there was no adverse finding that there was not an investigation for the residency and the driver's license status of mr thomas and it is the government's position that as long as there is a legitimate investigation and there's no finding that there wasn't that there can be do investigations and that's the government's position and i'm been a while since i've read rand but isn't that the case where the police suspected drug activity but stopped the car for a traffic violation and then contacted the driver hoping that they might see in plain view or from whatever further contact they would have with the driver  simply the initial stop i mean clearly the supreme court was presented with a case where the officers had a different reason but seized upon a traffic violation as the way to get mr wrenn pulled over and then presumably when they were contacting mr wrenn about the where do you live and well your honor i think that if the traffic stop you had the lady producing these documents you had questions that followed upon the production of these documents you had three different states providing these three different documents and you ha legitimate questions ok where you live are you actually a resident of washington which has issued your driver's license why are you not a resident of california where you have social services cards and he asked how many residen do you have she said she had a couple and was getting a third in oregon and how is that related to following too closely it's not your honor it's related to the vehicle section twenty five hundred being a licensed driver if her washington driver's license was issue but she is no longer a residence a resident of the state of washington it's not a valid license it's not recognized in washington it's not recognized in california isn't there a grace period i don't know if there is i mean i previously been in washington state  but when you have a registration and i sense and how uncommon is it for somebody to be driving in a fight with a washington driver's license oh i'm sure there are plenty of people driving to washington i can almost guarantee you there are very very few with washington licenses or registration in california social services cards there just aren't many of those and that's what the disposition that what that would cause them to think that perhaps this lady might be a resident of oregon or california she in fact said she had a residence in california she in fact said she was moving to oregon and he pursued that line of questioning your honor thank you very much  to following too closely but now he's got some indication that there may be a problem with regard to the registration or licensing status of the driver but put you on a california law california code vehicle code section twelve eight  can't use that as the sole basis for extending as a technician even if he has otherwise lawfully stopped her for following too closely and he was presented with evidence that she may not be properly licensed he can't conduct  questioning and i don't think that you're leaving he can extend the detention based and the concerns of one licensed driver and he cannot detain around that base just if he she she should have been released based on a traffic stop within a minute if the officer is presented with evidence of a different violation of the vehicle code he cannot detain or any wander in order to conduct an inquiry into that particular violation and that's just strikes me as i don't think you cannot rule i don't think you can detain or for seven or ten  suspicion of drug trafficking not just that his hunches his guesses his just a lot of fraud reasonable facts that raise the suspicion that you may not be properly licensed to drive well there's nothing that he that she was she said she was twenty feet behind seventy miles an hour and when she was asked the control that she was fonzie closely in answer judge pleasures question she said i was so i mean she's like ok you got me i did it so it's like