the morning your honour's michelle bar on behalf of mr santiago who is the a pint in this matter this case involved a traffic stop of a car in which mr santee on was traveling so the central question before this court is whether the prolonging of the stop to investigate other criminal activities was warranted by reasonable suspicion officer testified that eight minutes into the traffic stop he had all of the information he needed in order to issue tickets but he found nothing suspicious in the driver's licenses registration that's correct he found nothing suspicious about it purt rodriguez absent reasonable suspicion of some other crime that eight minute mark is the equivalent of a fourth amendment terminus you know there are two facts that the government has relied on that happened within that eight minute period the first factor is the ubiquitous signs of nervousness and the second factor is the alleged and consistent responses between rivera in sant was that's a different story inconsistent answers it seems to me that that might merit further and they didn't know where they were were they couldn't say where they'd been with is rivera did not know santiago and its home address both men  in the name of the so i don't think that the name of his aunt happened during that initial questioning both men said they came from sad on its home and gave the name of the city so in the end those factors even coupled with nervous nervousness does not amount to reasonable suspicion especially when you consider all the other factors that were before the court there was no testimony that the member travelling along a drug court or that they were traveling from a source city that they were traveling at a suspicious time of day question about the cell phones in the they may have been visible but the officer only discovered it after santana left the car so i think that part of the problem with the district court's decision here is that it mixed up occurred after the eight minute mark without distinction and both opinions relied on cases that were abrogated by rodriguez so in the end what you have  and then you add in that there was no observable contraband you didn't smell drugs the men accurately identify themselves and the men were headed north towards massachusetts which is where they said that they were headed so the sorts of know where they're going is and that's really the right well i guess whether or not you can asked about travel plans at all in a during a during a traffic stop i think it's an officers who often stop a person for traffic violations or not be able to work to know where they're going what they're planning to do that kind of thing i think it depends on the circumstances there certainly is no have to reasonable suspicion and this kid this court hasn't published a case on the issue but there is an unpublished case u s b carter which suggests that asking about travel plans is not per se permissible in fact  cardiff found that it was permissible under those circumstances because the officer suspected that the driver was impaired and because of a homemade sign that was on the outside of the taxi cab door and in that case the officers questions about travel plans for related to the stop you can't say that about this case however because there was no reason to ask about their travel plans the act of asking about the travel plans  the officer cannot go along the stop so that he can develop the requisite amount of suspicion the suspicion must arise before the extension  in the government morning your honor my name your honors my name is christy greenberg i mean assistant u s attorney with the u s attorney's office in the southern district of new york representing the government in the subpoena so i'd like to start with rodriguez first and distinguishing rodriguez from this case and also addressing what i believe is a misreading of rodriguez first in rodriguez the traffic stop was over all of the relevant information pertaining to the stop had b officer and the officer had issued the ticket at that point the officer could not extend the traffic stop at this officer did not issue the ticket even though he had all the information he needed to issue the ticket so we going to give him the benefit of extending the stop by not issuing the right get around road regan's well so rodriguez doesn't hold that says when the mission is complete it says when it doesn't say that it says all the tasks associated with issuing the traffic violations either were complete or reasonably should have been there is there some wiggle room there in terms of what is reasonable and what was left to do at the time being asked mr rodriguez to get out of the car so the facts that were before the officer at this eight minute mark are that you have a dr a car who's been asked where are you coming from and he doesn't know the answer he hesitates he's nervous he's shaking he turns to the passenger and you know there is a moment where he's looking to him for the answer and then says the passengers answer and he says coming from miami to miami and you don't necessarily have to know but we're coming from my aunt's house the pass the driver said from the passenger's aunt's house when asked for a location of where that was he could not answer he could not provide any location of where he who know if this were a ground for arrest how many people who don't pay attention to addresses especially or think coming from an area with lots of apartment houses not talking about the rest you know no we're not we're just this is just for the purposes of a traffic stop and being pulled over for a traffic stop asking the driver where you were coming from seems like a fairly basic question that a driver should be able to answer without saying he had to have the address of the house and of course we know they weren't at the pass he said from his aunt's travels did he have to know the street address and apartment number no the driver simply needed to provide a location the reason he couldn't do it is because that's not where they work they weren't in new jersey they weren't at the passenger's aunt's house they were at an apartment building in washington heights buying drugs and they were coming back from doing that and hutchinson parkway is and there is testimony in the record a drug court or so but these are these given those facts given the fact that the officer asked a basic question and it's implausible for the driver it happened no response at all and to be that nervous about a very basic and simple question to be shaking as he provides his hands are shaking as he's providing his documents you know they're speaking in low voices they're not making eye contact all of those things taken together certainly allow the officer to ask some questions putting aside the fact that they're there that would be reasonable suspicion also just for safety for safety purposes to inquire further is entirely reasonable in these circumstances were vindicated by having him get in the car well certainly if someone is nervous they don't know where they're going or where they're coming from maybe you want to ask some more questions before you let that person get out on the route he had no reason to believe that he was impaired in any way well i think he had a reason to think there was something wrong he didn't think he was impaired by drugs or alcohol at that stage no his hands are shaking and he's very nervous and he can't answer basic questions i don't think the officer had formed an opinion it's not on the record one way or another whether he believed at that point he was impaired he certainly believed as an officer that he wanted to inquire more and that's entirely reasonable for him to have done it again rodriguez does not prohibit the officer from asking a basic question like that at a traffic stop that's fairly routine i mean in fact in rodriguez the officer asked where are you coming from where are you going after he went and did a check he came back and asked where you come in where he went  o found the license plates found the driver's licenses and the car was registered no question there once he did his computer you know it really scares me to think in this country that you can get arrested because you nervous who isn't arrested when they're stopped by the police and to be clear at this point the officer was not seeking to arrest him all we're talking about now i believe you arrested him once or but when he took him out of the car that was the beginning of an earnest well at this stage this eight minute stage nobody's taken out of the car he simply after eight minutes take him out of the car after eight minutes the officer  mark mark even if you even if you agree that somehow it was required he had to write that ticket at that mark which we do not believe for a treatise as you had to do that there is really just complete the the mission you started what you have to do of inability to answer questions the fact that it's implausible not to have a very basic response of where coming from and even the passenger whose aunt it was couldn't provide any sort of articulable specifically spencer used me he said they're coming from his answer when he took when he turned to santiago and i believe and said were where was where we come from and he said your aunt's house wrecked and then the officer further been enough it would have been a location it would have been some more information than not having an answer and appearing very nervous i don't know and so they have the brute to this information that's my question so when they were nervous you want to arrest these position is at this minute mark given the fact that there is an inability to provide any real specificity to basic questions about origin and destination coupled with the nervousness coupled with the fact that the passenger did have a photocopy of an identification it was but it was not of a for a forgery they checked it in the computer that's correct and so he had a photocopy but it was a real  questions which again simply provide some reasonable suspicion that that something is wrong and there are there are clearly there are cases there are cases where you're finding implausible or inconsistent answers coupled with nervousness does support reasonable suspicion at the where you said before that he was coming from a drug house that is post eight minutes you didn't have that information when you asked him think i think you could continue to look at it because i think the traffic stop was permitted to continue whether it's because the traffic stop alone allowed you to continue to there wasn't a doubt allowed you to continue until you completed the mission of the traffic stop that's what rodriguez says and the mission was to write the ticket and leave these people alone well again i think there there's a part at rodriguez again doesn't require the instant that you have all the information you must write the ticket it just says you have to agree to be reasonably completing it and i think it sort of just say that and it deals with the the wrong stopping someone and keeping them into you find something to challenge them with that's what rodrigues was designed to counteract you can  and at the point where they're being then placed in patrol cars at that point there is a terry stop it's an investigative detention at that point your honor i see i have very little time left so i just want to shift to one  was the officer asking initially hector santi and how much cash he had on him he said eighty dollars the officer later when he first him found in the back pocket there was a thousand dollars pulled it out officers he never thought it was a weapon correct well he had various reasons to be concerned for his safety one that he never thought it was a weapon the bulge of no no he didn't and so judge when the before the press but after the frisk where pulls out the cash and santi and says yeah i thought you were asking about my front pocket it's a thousand dollars those statements there was at the district court level there was never a motion to suppress on fourth amendment grounds this first time we are seeing this argument that those statements are the fruits of an illegal search and seizure is on appeal so that argument has been weighed on more patients to they seek to suppress they sought to he sees the cell phone model saw it owns energy drinks he sees all of this is after the eight minute mark when he could have written the ticket and let these guys continue on their journey is that true that is correct all right thank you thank you you have one minute rebuttal for the pat down search was not supported by reasonable suspicion and it further supports hearing meant that officer maria  so at that point there were other things that happened right they found the there was a they noticed that there was a difference in the sun and in the eyes of the seat during that period of time right but that was after going on the basis of the information that was obtained in the first eight minutes for the group that was not the only information they had at the time of the patents and that's ahead further information after they got out of the car that supported reasonable including the fact that there was a difference in the height of the seats which any reasonable officer and these reasonable officers knew could indicate a trend in the car  that's that's what they reacted to that's an inference is supported by the record ok let me just state again that that comes after a minute more when the ticket could have been written that's right and at the time that mr officer reached into the pockets and pulled out that wad of cash he knew that it wasn't a weapon and object if we reasonable arfa server would have known it wasn't a weapon it was a fishing expedition officer maria took that cash and confronted mr santiago  because government use sentience dishonest statements about the cash as it's proof positive that he knew about the cocaine it argued that point at least five times during its closing arguments that's a three eighty  nine ninety three ninety four ten fifty six and ten fifty seven and just to quote one of those passages and they all have the same flavor but it's not just that he had a thousand dollars ladies and gentlemen it's not that at all it's study i thought it ok what did he say what did he say he said the reason first of all he said he had eighty dollars then he gets caught in a thousand dollars and you heard from officer moran when he admits that he sm was improper here than that then we have to see whether the other evidence the fact that mr santiago sitting on it on the trap and that they were in there was various evidence to corroborate  those statements at trial and using those dishonest statements about the cash as it's proof positive and i think points to how harmful that air really was thank you thank you thank you the argument