stops in three sequential days it will third fourth and fifth the stop on the third involve two gentlemen who were going to long branch new jersey of sensibly to breed a dog to provoke had no indication there's been no evidence whatsoever connecting that stop to our client  well i believe the district court made the finding that it resembled the dog let's see says the presence of the jog independence car the trooper both believe was the same dog he had observed in the car two individuals two days earlier who are on pretrial release for drug related violations i mean yes obviously tripper book at one point believes or asserted that he believed this was the same thought he also backed away from that during cross examination and in his affidavit of probable cause which was written on april fifth the same day that the warrant was issued in the warranty said the dog resembled one that was in a car two days earlier certainly give wrong information to his friends on the day of a professional he called her bribing him he said this was the same dog i pulled over two guys yesterday going to new jersey in fact of the two days ago and they were going to meet yesterday going to pit bull and i saw someone when i left the courtroom today walking a short haired dog that looked like a pit bull i wouldn't be reasonable for me to conclude that's the same dark that the people had two days ago you know there are many dogs that travel and there's question of the moment is is there enough in those two days for reasonable suspicion that is correct seems like to provoke is sort of patching things together and a reasonable argument could be made  that there's enough why is there during that time he claims to have learned certain things you know no law gives the fact our client was going to philadelphia to visit family and on the next day to provoke asserted that coming back one day later i inconsistent with our client's description of his travels which is i'm going to visit family for how long i don't know to provoke never followed up on that there's nothing inconsistent there's nothing contradictory about coming back twenty four hours later from a trip that takes five hours one way or i was i would say anything that our client did would have been inconsistent in shipper box mine if you come back three days later that would've been inconsistent because he had no luggage become back a he's not necessarily on or it again it's only a five hour trip one way you know i know of people who have traveled to philadelphia and returned the same day and it's the same you know overall it's again the dog i believe it's a red herring mr green story about his travel was not inconsistent wasn't contradictory his nervous behavior with one watches the again though yes but that's simply not enough there are you know reasonable suspicion i know factors in isolation aren't you know you don't have to look at them and individually but combined they have to eliminate a substantial portion of innocent  immediately engaged in actions that were designed to investigate drug crimes but yes that's so we have a man who's driving to philadelphia who had a criminal record a criminal rests in the past and says he's going to visit the family i'm not sure how long i'm staying there it's only a five hour drive the next day he's coming back and that would authorize the stocks of any person who has had a criminal history of any sort when they make a short trip or perhaps even a long trip again there's just no inconsistency  it can be considered but i think it has to be considered a context which is there is no allegation of marijuana smell on april fourth it was april fifth i believe is when the record says that to provoke was saying yesterday it's not like wrong marijuana there was a pretext will stop once we get to that point all the trooper knew when he pulled over mr green and spoke to him for a few seconds was that he was coming back because his daughter had allegedly broken her leg and you know he had a dog in the back seat that brought in and started speaking about i just caught that dude by accident you know and he's got the dog and he admits on cross examination i i think the appellate is around one ninety six on cross examination where one ninety three the one ninety eight he admits he called her providing him he's waiting for backup and he also says i'm sure i was getting a hold of the canine perhaps so he was getting a hold of the dog immediately after pulling over  even the issuing of a warning ticket i think could be decided to be related to the investigation and what world you're pulled over twice by police officers the same police officer two days in a row and given warning tickets there was really no action taken not one to be discovered no your honor first of all i don't believe that a refusal to consent to search can ever be considered as part of the reasonable suspicion and now assess and furthermore it's a very  something that really would allow that it would be sent a very quickly to the refusal to consent in the first instance would trigger some sort of suspicion on the part of the of the officer and system should be free to refuse consent because the intrusion there's no de minimus exception to the fourth amendment and every intrusion on a person's liberty must be both in scope and duration limited to the justification for that seizure in the first instance that is the lesson i believe of rodriguez and what was violated in this case is evaluated under the officers cumulative knowledge so the of the bill you got to help me with this right yes or two black guys unrelated with the dog two days later another black gentleman with a dog what we have to look at it from proof vault perspective based upon the lens of his training and his experience he doesn't see black men with dogs no heat i'm not saying that your honor it's that he is a twenty year veteran of the pennsylvania state allegedly taking this dog to new jersey to have it praed he runs their names there are other indicators of criminal activity involved there the renter of the vehicle is not there it's a rental vehicle he runs their names his computer freezes he sends them on their way to the stop last four minutes they offer to sell him a dog he looks at the dog he sees the dog remember this is a pennsylvania this is a trooper with twenty years experience i mean they are trained to observe things after they leave believe both individuals who are involved in the record is what the record is but my recollection of the record is that both of them were involved in drug trafficking activities and one specifically was of interest to the city of pittsburgh  believe one of the finest of fact made by jeff gives in and he also learned of the one of the ark occupants was of interest to the sitting or cottage unit and that is found approximately nineteen minutes and twenty seven seconds into exhibit sees the dog it's almost kind of like a eureka moment he's able to you know figure out at least his theory are at least what he thinks is going on is that these guys on the third were taking money out to buy drugs and they had the dog on for protection and that mr green is bringing something bring the drugs back in the dogs also in our protection yes he does he says that at several points the during the conversation as if you brought him as well as with  his lieutenant at the barracks when he calls an opinion from asian about the it will third stuff through the track system right so in you know he he says at various points throughout that well and and it's a day apart i mean two days apart two days apart he does make the same mistake and so with a well apparently to provoke the testify that he was involved in several other traffic stops in fact whenever the the stop to engage in further investigative activity aside in part you have to look at everything that occurred in april fourth mr greene who's traveling to philadelphia for an indeterminate period of time he has no luggage he has a record involving guns are now actually true per vote testifies and states again he's been arrested so many times for guns and drugs it's hilarious he says that in exhibit d c i'm sorry did you perceive for whenever they that it had been used to transport marijuana in the past is there any reference in the record to what rar or smells like because i'm a bit confused because the calculus of weakness reasonable suspicion if the right result right but if it isn't a record i'd like to know what it smells i did not see any references to the difference between raw marijuana and current marijuana but since if i can find something that i can include in my response i didn't see anything in the record that specifically would differentiate between the two now i mean i do know the you know we have him going to philadelphia for an indefinite period of time lack of luggage odd characteristics concerning the cards fell of marijuana a drug history and then less than you know the first traffic stop occurs roughly that actually you can consider the fact that there is a dock present maybe it's not the same god but at least it's suspicious enough what do you do with the stock if i shouldn't as a family you're here in philadelphia for like less than eighteen or twenty hours and you're coming back to pittsburgh explaining the traffic citation to giving him the warning and again a trained investigators he is able to detect nervousness how people are reacting i mean he was talking about how being overly friendly is an indicator of criminal activity that being tight with people trying to conceal your nervousness and he said that mr greene exhibited all of those characteristics during the interview with stop when he just happened to have heroin in the trunk of his car and did not exhibit those characteristics on the april fourt stop when he had nothing nothing in his car other than the air fifteen so but i think under the tally of those circumstances reason suspicion to extend the scope of the sock that exist but again with the dog the presence of the dog was suspicious in that it did resemble the dog that was involved in the able third traffic stop and again we have to look at the cumulative what so the  trunk of this car because the only way you could apparently access it was to get into the car itself you had the full dark fall down the seat and if you have a hip pull in the back in the car itself that makes ripping off the drugs  very i don't think anybody's described it as i am not a dog person i'm didley not a dog person apparently polk is not either but i don't remember a reference to a pit bull to give us the illusion that this was  with mr green's account for being in philadelphia going travelling to philadelphia for an indefinite period of time to visit family so i think by the time he calls trooper brothy that he has you know for bet so at that point that that's that is that oh no i believe it's earlier than that but he still concluding that the traffic stop itself ok so if that's true then that means what we saw the exchange that we see on camera with trooper vol is not part of what you believe is the justification for reasonable suspicion i just want to know no i'm not going to take that out then you're taking out our you have ability to see and what the trooper you have to look at this thing is kind of like an emerging ongoing well that's why we as you have all of us are earlier but but but i don't want to say when when when well it's a continuum it is a continuum but i mean certainly the grounds are laid whenever he sees the dog and he realizes that there's something bigger going on here than just a marriage traffic stop and he does enunciate those suspicions that you brought him now at that point i believe he is permitted to extend the scope of the stop the mission of the stop to gather additional evidence and i believe he does testify to that at one point he was talking about  testifying in the in that regard i just want to know the point of time that we can stop and say ok now let's consider whether there's reasonable suspicion a lot of luxury right for i believe it's up to the point when the citation is issued and anything up to that point i believe can factor into reasonable suspicion that  very clear there is no de minimus exception the moment the officer starts in using activities that are designed to investigate other crimes other than that which justify the see even the first instance in this case the beating reasonable suspicion is required so at that point in i'm i'm not so sure i think justice justice ginsburg at least would would agree with me she was very clear in writing for the majority in rodriguez and the dissent think i'm biased that you don't get to lend the duration  time is not what matters necessarily it's the length of time anything that measurably says you can measure it fish just a little bit of time that's enough as well as the scope of what the you know it must be the officers actions must be judged by not there's no evidence to support that conclusion relevant to the calculus and carry more weight in the reasonable suspicion analysis likewise this whole special latch thing you know i mean my honda doesn't have a hole in the back you have to use the remote with the remotes broken the only way to get into is going through the back seat so there's you know yes the only way to get into this truck was to go through the back seat but there's no indication it was in any way altered from its original state and may have simply been a broken remote that one allow you to get in there any other there i think there could have been more evidence to support that which is lacking in this case and you know trip of all is certainly an experienced officer but he was also wrong the day before when he thought that both mr green and the other individual were super special beside mr green there was nothing in the other person's car there's no indication that there was you know he was correct in that analysis i mean he's human and it just seems on those who tell you the circumstances here every single thing was designed to release and of course has no evidence as to whether or not that person was allowed to travel people on pretrial release can be permitted to travel permission from the court of their probation officer so that i think it is as nothing to this case