suspicion let me ask you is it your position that there were not enough additional factors besides the fact that there were three sedans at a very late hour of all driven by women there were not enough additional factors are you saying regardless of how many additional factors there may have been it would be impermissible even to consider that there were women pointed out throughout their testimony are nonsense as a matter of fact that this record let me ask you go to say yes or no is it impermissible to have as one of those factors the coincidence of it each vehicle or similar vehicle being driven by women and then add some other factors to it are you saying that has to be ignored even though in the officers experience that is unusual and then tie it to other factors as well believe that he should be something that should be considered for example i would agree with let's say all three vehicles are racing to the same person but there is no such thing year and a consecutive look at the license plates before they won so they can go in and get the try to where a gym was questionable what would be normal traffic at that time and he ends up saying about five cars in five minutes and we look at the video and look at the timing that's what to me i'm so there was nothing missing about the traffic and the agents as well i don't know he may have been involved who knows and so he didn't even bother them taking me instead of thinking let me take this bit was right here he sent someone to go look for the other two vehicles and he never bothers with the  description of the vehicle to look into whether that person was involved for all we know that person to have been the agents love it or to send the women to his supervising that they're going through but the agent decided not to do that says those two cars in front of me had aliens however at that time of the hearing that's when we find out that the agents are saying well no no no when we stopped my on the other vehicle that had already passed through past so i think that trying to imply they never would discovery would be just too far a stretch to say well it could have happened but i don't think it's a was more factor for example it's two vehicles driving through the checkpoint the vehicles had sent my one out there was a c v of radio transmission and this is the radio transmission was in channel six a channel that's a small town out of houston and that town is about one hundred eighty three miles from that checkpoint so here we have different countries that connect to us so that we can say  cars were going to the same place dress code word like there's a dress code to go to the checkpoint at some point they describe that the women were being used to distract them like if there were no female agents at the checkpoint and the when morning your honour's may please the court rosco them and for the united states miss mackey relies on her gender profiling claim both in support of her fourth amendment claim and in support of her equal protection selective enforce i think it's very important as this court considers those claims that they must be treated separately for purposes of addressing the gender profile and in the fourth amendment context it is very clear after the supreme court's decision in round that the subjective motivations of officers are irrelevant that the court will not look behind an objectively reasonable reasonable traffic stop to to inquire about the subjective motivations of the officers in this case on the fourth amendment side there are a number of volunteers that support the district court's conclusion that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion first and i think most important is the fact that the agents found suspected illegal aliens hiding in this lawrence's car in the agents have a reasonable basis to assume that miss mackey was writing in tandem with miss florence and that combination of finding the contraband in one car with a suspicion of running in tandem for the other car goes all the way toward providing reasonable suspicion for the stop smuggling route and so i think the district work was on very very solid ground and upholding the stop under the commitment on the selective enforcement side to be sure and officer subjective motivations may be  is a framework for deciding these kinds of for these kinds of equal protection so that doesn't force me claims and i think the easiest way for this court to resolve the claim in this case is to busy to analyze it the way the district court did which is to say mis brief i think there's a deeper question on the discriminatory purpose complet and i should say a very fair inference that there was no discriminatory purpose here and i think the best evidence of that is that that the checkpoint agent thing the government doesn't have to show as my friend said that the evidence certainly would have been discovered the standard is a reasonable probability not certainty how does the timing work on that remind me when was the call ahead when it was  individual is inside is highly unusual but the vast majority of traffic oil rigs commercial traffic sometimes school buses are families coming home from sporting events and they just were didn't rely on gender at all in formulating reasonable suspicion for the  stop but i think those are the i think that i think that just what had that analysis correct john a word on the first amendment claim since it since it came up with respect to the dress code i think it's very clear from the record in both the magistrate judge and the district court came to this conclusion that although agent monte rojas used the formulation dress code he was in no way suggesting that there was in fact a set of clothes that someone is required to w in the reasonable suspicion calculus that is a final point that i want to make my friend on the other side has referenced this fourth car that was at the checkpoint there does appear to be a fourth car it does appear to be a that fourth car was involved in this or not but again by that time they had stopped miss flora as they had sound legal suspected illegal aliens from her trunk they had brought her into the checkpoint station they drove her car off to the side there's just no evidence in the record at all with respect to that fo other than the fact that it was there and that it looks like it was a sedan with that i'm happy to answer any questions that the court may have on any of these claims otherwise we would ask the court to affirm agent paid absolutely no attention and could not describe anything about that force and that is he completely ignored it because it was it was a male as to as to the the argument right now about equal protection i think  them being female it was the it's repeated it's the whole theme of the prosecution at the motion to suppress even though now it's being played down that was their thing and in j b n j v what you have is you have the state striking all of the male jurors because they don't believe it and it's in a paternity case because they don't believe males can be fair in a paternity case to the female and the court and that's what we have here we have a case where where the agents through their testimony repeatedly use words like females are used to distract the use that at three thirty six again at three thirty six at three thirty nine three sixty two and three seventy one and then they repeatedly case that describes a situation like this because what counsel is talking about right now are cases that that involve a defendant having to prove that there was discrimination here we don't have to prove it the agents themselves through their words they said it they said at the prosecutor's side and and that's different from the cases that they've cited in those cases you had they're mostly civil cases in the context of describe several several factors but when you look at the factors the factors are all nonsensical if you look at agent that organises his testimony because throughout his testimony he goes back to clothing women being used to distract agents which presumes that all the agents are are man and that they would somehow be distracted by women and that this is something that he's seen maybe once that he next case for the morning