result of the testimony by officer rang in this case and the conclusions that jetstream are made in nine motions crafts first of all don't have a post office box on your operators so don't have that to ensure that you have appendix eighty two don't drink a coke or eat mcdonald's while you're in your vehicle that's also suspicious because it's indicative of you're not trying to have a conversation with the officer at santa join appendix ninety nine don't stay too close to your car or the opposite don't walk away from your car you're so trying to divide conquer aren't you by taking one piece of evidence no sir i think that really you as you do have to fuse it to tally the circumstances but i think the point that i'm trying to make is as so many opinions of this court have concluded the most recent being slocombe what the government has tried to do is take this point to the court i think that there are more important issues to be able to raise i think the most significant issue to raise before the court is whether or not those factors that the district court found in its order on page twenty of the joint appendix whether all of those factors constituted a reasonable suspicion to be able to detain mr palmer to await the drug dog which took approximately twenty nine to thirty minutes our position or how much they were also waiting to get information on here well despite the drug all they were of yes sir but if you look at that and i hope the courts looked at the video and his considered point was a traffic stop well the officer never even broke out the summons book he never even started to write a summons never considered right at the correct on the on the end of ten days and then the and that's that's kind of different from a window ten years kind of stops i mean the window to get in does suggest concern and so we start with doubt and the district courts that there was something wrong with the inspection sticker but i think that that's a less important point now you can't just detain somebody on the basis of all traffic stop along and we understand that from rodriguez above the legal or below the legal limit it wasn't such an extreme and the court also can tell by looking at the video that the city officer walks up to the car you can see through the back window of the car you see bags you see articles that are sitting in the back seat so it's not to the extent that it's so blacked out that you can't see anything well nobody in there a difference between if you already have quite sure that there's a difference i great but i'm saying that it's not to the extreme that one would therefore consider database and the blood's membership and the rest even though not the obviously doesn't sudden america probable cause if it doesn't at least amount to reasonable suspicion i mean officer ring said that this defendant was nervous he was nervous it's one point he says he's nervous and it's second what he says he's playing it to cool for school ok yes that's you you heard in my oh i didn't i didn't catch you honestly never going to that and i didn't attach a lot of significance to the fact is in a high crime area i think those kind of things by themselves you know a lot of people are nervous and people should be able to we're not even asked to say that it's probable cause i don't think it probably is probable cause but after it lays bits reasonable suspicion to justify a little bit longer it's going to kill the dog comes in and then the case you have a number of factors that are present in this case that the court found was not sufficient reasonable suspicion in pal you had a protective order which was a caution data which is similar to what the with the district court ruled in the two thousand and eleven a judge king in the dissented but the majority held that those facts were not sufficient to be able to establish reasonable suspicion and in fact in palace goes one step farther because he misrepresented the status of this operator's license to the officer none of which is present in this particular case fact it's just exactly the opposite the court when it looks at the video sees mr palmer in his car acting perfectly appropriate it's daytime it's a heavily traveled thoroughfare it's a that's that you don't want people to know well no no sorry i disagree with that but i think part two of your question though has to be it's not his car it's not his car so you're attributing these concealment factors and air freshener factors to a car that doesn't belong to him that he's borrowed from somebody else and can you therefore it's scribed to him the motives to conceal the motives to to hide things when it's not even his vehicle and  that extraordinary factors that are present in those cases where this court has found that there has been reasonable suspicion but that perhaps but that or progress coupled with this blood's thing that seems to be to give some weight so some because some of these past is is is there and that's sufficient for a police officer to detain you for thirty minutes at some point that has has to be a rapist at some point you've paid your dues to society and it's some point that can't just keep counting against you so that every time you get stopped by an officer you're subject to search that can't be the law and when the court looks at it judge wilkinson's decision in branch in the court looks at the green dissension all of those facts are present in those cases are much more warning others may please the court judge do maurice conclusion that the factors here support a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot is well supported by the factors that are before the court  big of course but i can at least one felony conviction because he was a parent he was charged with being having a firearm as a convicted felon and he had four rar arrests or narcotics charge similar to men in this rule said that we don't even need to reach to reasonable suspicion issued because under our governing circuit law at the time pretty rodriguez the minimus rule was in effect an officer in good faith relied on that to municipal court to do the always this point to go into that car and i thought and i honestly believe that you know the the law enforcement officer deserves some credit some respect for not just taking this collection of said i can tell you is it's it's only here you can that's it on that point i would urge the court if it hasn't already to review the video that shows that officer ring carefully you can see reasonable suspicion as  notes developing throughout the stop and one point officer actually gets on the on the phone perhaps with a supervisor that's not clear from the video relays this to factors that he already has put in to make the decision to call for the dog one of the factors that this court has noted that it looks out and in looking back on a stop is whether appears that the factory post hoc rationalization by the officer or by the government in this case the video clearly refutes that it shows just as your arm is saying the nervousness factor in this case is not necessarily strong as it's not required for the court to me don't need it don't need it but i would dispute that it's clear air the district court had the opportunity to evaluate the officer specifically found of so watching the video you can see officer ring make numerous calls for a canine he first request a canine at four minutes and twenty seconds into the video at five minutes he asks his partner if he can tempt  at six thirty six minutes and thirty seconds he again asks the partner to call a canine you can hear the partner on the phone appears to be attempting to get a call canine they discuss it getting get it seven minutes and thirty seconds eight minutes and twenty seconds i had nine minutes and forty five seconds at the start and once more eleven minutes and thirty seconds after he goes into the car you see in the video officer bring gets or makes a phone call to of what appears to chief officer duncan who had the officer does not need to use the most restrictive method and in the just the explanation for that is that it's easy for us in a post hoc monday morning quarterbacking situation to imagine other situation other ways said officer could potentially have gotten similar evidence the question is whether the method that the officer actually used violated someone's constitutional rights that's why the restricted one thing i was going to ask you the inspection sticker was the reason you would probably have to look for a special inspector look at it from behind that there was all in it to determine whether the information that the state requires be on the back to determine whether it's there that's right you have to look state database but there's no evidence that that existed or that the officer had access to it and then mr holmes also said well you could have asked for the sheet of paper but there's no evidence that mr that mr palmer had that in the car with him  or whether that in of itself would if away the officers concerned about the then noticed when he got closer that he couldn't see the perforation on the sticker but regardless of whether it was the tint or the sticker there's clearly a basis here for officer brain to stop the car you justification either raised suspicion i think over talking that is least intrusive means to be able to confirm or to spells the officer suspicions with respect to particular item in this particular case the inspection sticker so our the dog that's it that's fine and we won't address it that's a different herring that's in some court with respect to the what should concern the court however is if this officer three minutes into the video says there's something going on here four minutes into the video four minutes he started a call for a dog and what does he know in those four minutes the only thing he knows is air freshener tinted windows and this report from the norfolk police we don't know how that kind of requirement inflexible you're going to link these detentions because you know their limit is number of canines if going to police departments particularly in findings of the court need i want to be honest here that we've discussed each one of them we've discussed with two we haven't discussed briefly or the post office box and somebody else's car the judge just to have discussed well but there's no case law to support those his findings