right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure that he was traveling in was pulled over for speeding and what should have been no more than a few minutes to issue a written warning or verbal warning instead was prolonged into an approximately thirty minute roadside interrogation at which you know coined to the arresting officer established reasonable suspicion halsall i'm getting some background noise perhaps i think your mike is turned too high used is judge parker used the wrong standard instead of waiting the evidence determining what weight to give the evidence what inferences to draw that evidence in an even handed way he deferred completely to the still matters and that in other words the officer would have had to explain why his training experience informed whether something was out of the ordinary such that it would amount to reasonable suspicion and so the court just because the court has to defer to an officer in terms of their training experience doesn't mean that they have to out of hand to just accept whatever subjective conclusions the officer is drawing from what he's serving well what but facts are would say are objective facts for example the court agreed with the officer that i forty a major east west highway is a smuggling route which we highly disputed now the officer  evidence to determine that every two to negate this idea that i forty is a major smuggling route because the notion is in a lot of ways certain as far as the other factors your honor  not necessarily that we have to do away with whether or not there's it's not a question of innocence versus guilt as we think well before we leave disputed facts do you have any more besides the forty point your honor we we can see that a lot of the facts that are at issue here are objective it's more the subjective interpretation by the officer that's at issue and so we're not disputing the fact that there was a voter id we're not disputing the fact that there were seven people been in school and we are disputing the fact that body odor is somehow indicative of aliens and so those are the disputes at issue here on whether or not all of these objective facts mean what the officer says they mean card now mexican nationality is not indicative of anything there's the degree of suspicion that attaches to this particular factor is essentially no one boy if well must most law vehicle was driving without a license however there's no nexus between not having a license an alien smuggling and so while he may have been with an act fact that he has mexico he does that lean a little bit to country illegally and well evidence of mexican nationality might be one of those things it needs to be accompanied by something more for example information that this vehicle was coming from the border in you know maybe other other information about about what what these men were doing it would indicate that they were all from mexico and that they had just come from the border they were traveling on a highway they're constantly two hundred and fifty miles north of the border and as far as the officer knew they were there or origin was california and so this idea without anything more is just evidence that this person is from mexico the officer did nothing to investigate his suspicion that mexican nationality i individually examine each factor and determines what weight to give each factor and that's there's many examples of the circuit doing undergoing an exacting analysis one of those as well as versus vasquez cited in our brains and so we do need to look at the individual factors otherwise there's no way to get ahead of him whoa picture of how they all work together and in this case but what you're also what what is your strongest analogous th circuit case to support your position and no reasonable suspicion is that lewis some something else what what's your best case well your honor i don't know if i would point to necessarily one exact in that situation the court went through each factor that the court relied on as far as is reasonable suspicion and said we cannot think of a scenario in which a combination of otherwise and if he facts becomes suspicious which is exactly what we have here the objective facts here are that we had seven men in a passenger vehicle designed to accommodate passengers it was insured it was registered on the vin number checked out it was traveling on a major east west highway two hundred and fifty miles from the border  the men had an explanation as to where where they were going there was nothing that furthered any of this is fissions that officer who sarah purportedly you know had at the outset of the stop of the case as far as another case that i think would be informative i believe that de la cruz is another signal as another case that this court could consider in terms of being fairly analogous in that case the circuit also found that there was no reasonable suspicion the stop was a significant distance from the united states border much like our case there was no evidence that the men were furthering their m up a presence in the country granted the often said issue in that case was a violation of united states united states code one thousand three hundred and twenty six i'm awful and three i think the facts are sort of similar because we're talking about men who are here illegally or not whether or not there's evidence of that that would therefore justify further investigation into the possibility of human smuggling in that in india crews the court held that just because one member of the group maybe in the country unlawfully that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone that accompanies that person is also involved in criminal activity and so in this case just because one of the just because the driver as was of mexican nationality the officer it's not reasonable for it for him to infer them and everyone else in the car is also mexican and they're all being smuggled i think one of the most important things to take away from the officers testimony at the motion to suppress hearing is that he wasn't able to articulate what he thought was happening and that's not permitted what he said was that he thought some sort of crime was afoot and he didn't know who was smuggling those both these people there was just some sort of criminal activity occurring and if it was some questions i would like t for the district court to re consider reasonable suspicion or should we take it on ourselves you're going to the court may do either i believe that the court is within its authority to determine that the court erred district court seemingly erroneous application of law here and i believe your honor for getting at this at the end of this year's argument do not necessarily mandate remained in this case as this court ruled recently my aren't we forget you are in to to be glib about this but if they district court your honor yes the district court did state that it evaluated the evidence in the light most favorable to the government however i think when this court now song that air yes your honor it is absolutely here i think if we're looking at i think it's also important for this court when evaluating what that if what mr measurement does is asking just to say that t court just was why i don't be out of line with except being the district courts inferences from the law enforcement officer in fact that district court found multiple things against the government st the presence of the luggage in the vehicle that was it an undisputed fact there was some amount of luggage in the back that was visible to the officer in that district court you've got all the way to that and said this is not something that i'm going to wait toward reasonable suspicion further the government asserted at the district court level that the continuation of the stop was voluntary once the officer asked both mr badger been does as well as the driver whether or not they would consent to for the questioning in the district were found against that so i don't want to spend a ton of time in that your honour's i just want to point out that while the district court put in believe it was one line at the end of their memorandum opinion and order that they were they were using an erroneous standard passage on page fifteen of the district court's order and this is after the court had walked through the various factors and then said that it transport transporting undocumented aliens i'm not sure how how we're supposed to sort of disentangle what inferences the court may have drawn in favor of the government under the iranians standard of review as opposed to drawing or deferring to inferences that the officer may reasonably have made and why shouldn't we send this back so that the district court can do this correctly under the proper standard  lower level actually weighed properly in the answer is that you don't have to because the answer to your nd question your honor why you shouldn't just send this case back is clear and united states versus shelton because in that case this court said that the district courts incorrect precipitation of the standard in this case like in that case as well the light most favorable had no bearing no bearing on the appeal because the defendant had not disputed any of the factual findings when your honor asked defense counsel a few minutes ago what facts were in dispute i think the answer was st off just the officers reasonable subjective conclusions and then the issue of i forty as a smuggling r pointed out there was nothing offered against that and what i think is important for the court not to miss is that not only what did the officer state on the record he believes that i forty is more likely a smuggling route but he explained  why he said that i ten which is a parallel east west highway has more immigration checkpoints so based on his training and experience he believes that it is more likely that someone who is smuggling alliums would be headed on i forty as opposed leave understands that there are more immigration checkpoints and i can't that's not a fact in dispute the i understand that the defendant is also disputing whether or not i do yoder is reasonable will know your honor but it's not possible when we're talking about whether or not whether i just inference was reasonable but it is something that is an undisputed fact that the officer took the stand and said i forty is more likely to be a smuggling route because there are checkpoints and i can't so it that is just i guess a naked fact to say are there more immigration checkpoints and i ten or i forty the officer came in and said there are more immigration checkpoints in i ten and that has been an undisputed i believe that the defense also in their argument referenced the issue of body odor as well as whether or not the car was full of teenagers again neither of those things are facts in dispute the officer said i smell the strong  odor coming from the vehicle that was an undisputed fact that he gave whether or not the reasonable inference drawn from that fact is that the officer could infer there was further investigation to be done that's or could be human smuggling af that is something that this court can analyze and should analyze under to nova standard because the question is is that a reasonable fact to consider but the fact that there was a body odor the fact that the car was full of teenagers your daughter reviews your honour's review the whether or not there was a reasonable reliances that the officer made she tainted the passengers longer in order for immigration to arrive remember seeing that description in the report that's because if the word uncontrollably wasn't important or i believe you said it wasn't isn't that isn't that an example of the court viewing the evidence the light most favorable to the government there's a conflict between the report which was prepared closer to the event than the suppression hearing isn't the car driving a ewing the evidence more favorable to the government reporting that was part of the evidence and suppression here well i think the argument here your honor is that they're stating that's not unusual so whether or not his the officer said it at the undoubtedly come to the same conclusion it did the st time after hearing the officers direct testimony as well as being subjected to a very thorough cross examination by defensed that the defendant was nervous his hand was shaking you're out of a reasonable suspicion arose at the time that the officer completed his initial conversation at the window of the vehicle and went back to his car i agree with the defense that there is if there wasn't a reasonable suspicion there if the moment when the officer went back to the vehicle that asked for the driver's license received only the mexican voter i d card when he saw the hand of the driver shaking uncontrollably his observation whether it was that the vehicle appeared to be completely full that he saw several young passengers in the back with at a time that he believed it was a school morning the passengers all appearing nervous like a deer in the headlights and i just wonder on that your honor in the defense  head in until later but even standing there at the side of the vehicle he was able to smell the strong body odor emanating from the vehicle and that is what he testified to so it was all of those combination of circumstances when he walked back to his vehicle for the st time anything as to whether the mexican id card contributed to his recent polls especially that he rely on that at the hearing i believe he said it did it factored in his mind that this person didn't have a license that they were  of consent they were told they're free to go they agreed to talk why oh why isn't this a consent case your honor i don't believe it's a consent case because i think that in holding with the supreme court's precedent rodriguez the initial delay that necessitated reasonable suspicion was that forty three seconds when the officer st returned to court so well i do believe that as the government argue to the district court there was consent i don't think that's the main issue here the main issue here is did those seven factors i'm including the luggage i realized the district you know if we if we disagree with you on a reasonable suspicion we should reverse i'm not asking for a reversal in that case what i'm saying is that i know you're not asking for it but you're but but you don't but you're not arguing consent me your honor i think that at the point the passenger said they we're willing to say that the definitive driver said they were willing to stick around there was consent but in this case i think the most pressing issue was the initial delay a few my time officer is saying just because i tend they have immigration checkpoints and i forty they don't that assumes incorrectly that the route that i tend is the route that these men should have taken when that in fact would have been suspicious if they had taken any route other than i forty and i think the main takeaway from all of these facts that the court relied on to justify reasonable suspicion is that the officer did not articulate with any particular already what makes this group of men traveling from california to texas a construction job more suspicious than it is a group of travelers there is nothing to distinguish them these objective facts support is a behavior and even of breaking down each individual fact the degree of suspension that attaches to each of them is