the trooper following me on a very short distance and he conducted a me inquiry over his computer did her determine if the car was stolen and it was not at were made to officer casper during the pendency of the traffic stop on the ticket was being written for example at the time that he was obtaining the information with regard to the driver's license and the status of the rental agreement at that or they converse a nursing home in denver and he should fly well i don't like to fly i like to drive i like to see the scenery but this was the middle of the night you stopped in the one in the morning not a lot of scenery to be seen and he told him that he had worked at  working at loyola i was on vacation three weeks vacation they had this discussion so within eleven minutes of the beginning of the traffic stop the officer concluded the traffic stop by handing him back his license a warning to you can even hear it being torn and telling  him to stay between the lane markings and then making cleveland giving him back the warning ticket ask him if he had any drugs and weapons or any money related to drugs or anything of the car at which point i believe the claimant seche had cash at about one thousand following the conclusion of a traffic stop does not constitute a second seizure the officer had attained consent to search went to the car looked in the backpack removed the items and now was faced with more than a thousand dollars in cash what looked to him to be more than  hundred thousand dollars in cash and bundles quite often bundled in rubber bands were rolled up in rubber bands so at that point the officer had that information as well and he decided that the money to him appeared to be contraband and appeared to contraband and seize the money and the bulk of the hearing that they have a motion to suppress the all concerned what happened up to that point up to the point where the money was found and they left the scene the judge denied the motion station the after the motion to suppress was denied the parties stipulate without a lot ration that their words that they would the statements were all come in and they would rely on the initial fortune hearing and that's what happened and then she gave the same rule when she'd given at the initial forfeiture hearing it's the people's position on appeal that the motion to suppress was properly denied that the traffic stop lasted less than eleven minutes this court has recently told us about ten to twelve minutes is reasonable to  hearing with a b c and dig but the only interest points a and b and those points were with regard to the traffic stop and that's what the people have addressed in their brief he decided no case law as to what happened at the scene after much money the people have responded to the items of press in the in the claimants brief but feel that if for any reason this court might feel that that what happened afterwards was a problem you would have to separate out the knowledge that the that the policeman had and then the to evidence that also came out of the forfeiture hearing with regard to that and still find that there would be enough to to support the finding of the forfeiture much of the information that was developed that was given but i had also been say to officer kasparov i do believe that the police station they went into more detail with about to bank accounts but be made out why nothing information was there certainly the bundling of the money was there so that was that the record was not very clear on who was trying to keep out what statements precisely