. In Illinois v. Caballes,543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable seizures. This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop. We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation. Id., at 407. The Court so recognized in Caballes, and we adhere to the line drawn in that decision.I Just after midnight on March 27, 2012, police officer Morgan Struble observed a Mercury Mountaineer veer slowly onto the shoulder of Nebraska State Highway 275 for one or two seconds and then jerk back onto the road. Nebraska law prohibits driving on highway shoulders, see Neb. Rev. Stat. §60–6,142 (2010), and on that basis, Struble pulled the Mountaineer over at 12:06 a.m. Struble is a K–9 officer with the Valley Police Department in Ne-braska, and his dog Floyd was in his patrol car that night. Two men were in the Mountaineer: the driver, Dennys Rodriguez, and a front-seat passenger, Scott Pollman. Struble approached the Mountaineer on the passenger’s side. After Rodriguez identified himself, Struble asked him why he had driven onto the shoulder. Rodriguez replied that he had swerved to avoid a pothole. Struble then gathered Rodriguez’s license, registration, and proof of insurance, and asked Rodriguez to accompany him to the patrol car. Rodriguez asked if he was required to do so, and Struble answered that he was not. Rodriguez decided to wait in his own vehicle. After running a records check on Rodriguez, Struble returned to the Mountaineer. Struble asked passenger Pollman for his driver’s license and began to question him about where the two men were coming from and where they were going. Pollman replied that they had traveled to Omaha, Nebraska, to look at a Ford Mustang that was for sale and that they were returning to Norfolk, Ne-braska. Struble returned again to his patrol car, where he completed a records check on Pollman, and called for a second officer. Struble then began writing a warning ticket for Rodriguez for driving on the shoulder of the road. Struble returned to Rodriguez’s vehicle a third time to issue the written warning. By 12:27 or 12:28 a.m., Struble had finished explaining the warning to Rodriguez, and had given back to Rodriguez and Pollman the documents obtained from them. As Struble later testified, at that point, Rodriguez and Pollman “had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reason[s] for the stop out of the way[,] . . . took care of all the business.” App. 70. Nevertheless, Struble did not consider Rodriguez “free to leave.” Id., at 69–70. Although justification for the traffic stop was “out of the way,” id., at 70, Struble asked for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle. Rodriguez said no. Struble then instructed Rodriguez to turn off the ignition, exit the vehicle, and stand in front of the patrol car to wait for the second officer. Rodriguez complied. At 12:33 a.m., a deputy sheriff arrived. Struble retrieved his dog and led him twice around the Mountaineer. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs halfway through Struble’s second pass. All told, seven or eight minutes had elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog indicated the presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle revealed a large bag of methamphetamine. Rodriguez was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§841(a)(1) and (b)(1). He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground, among others, that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. After receiving evidence, a Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge found no probable cause to search the vehicle independent of the dog alert. App. 100 (apart from “information given by the dog,” “Officer Struble had [no]thing other than a rather large hunch”). He further found that no reasonable suspicion supported the detention once Struble issued the written warning. He concluded, however, that under Eighth Circuit precedent, extension of the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was therefore permissible. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions and denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress. The court noted that, in the Eighth Circuit, “dog sniffs that occur within a short time following the completion of a traffic stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions.” App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander, 448 F. 3d 1014, 1016 (CA8 2006)). The court thus agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the “7 to 10 minutes” added to the stop by the dog sniff “was not of constitu-tional significance.” App. 114. Impelled by that decision, Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The “seven- or eight-minute delay” in this case, the opinion noted, resembled delays that the court had previously ranked as permissible. 741 F. 3d 905, 907 (2014). The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the delay here constituted an acceptable “de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty.” Id., at 908. Given that ruling, the court declined to reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning. We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower courts on the question whether police routinely may extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reason-able suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff. 573 U. S. ___ (2014). Compare, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 270 F. 3d 625, 632 (CA8 2001) (postcompletion delay of “well under ten minutes” permissible), with, e.g., State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶13, 229 P. 3d 650, 658 (2010) (“[W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.”).II A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation. “[A] relatively brief encounter,” a routine traffic stop is “more analogous to a so-called ‘Terry stop’ . . . than to a formal arrest.” Knowles v. Iowa,525 U. S. 113,117 (1998) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty,468 U. S. 420,439 (1984), in turn citing Terry v. Ohio,392 U. S. 1 (1968)). See also Arizona v. Johnson,555 U. S. 323,330 (2009). Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s “mission”—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407, and attend to related safety concerns, infra, at 6–7. See also United States v. Sharpe,470 U. S. 675,685 (1985); Florida v. Royer,460 U. S. 491,500 (1983) (plurality opinion) (“The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.”). Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.” Ibid. See also Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. See Sharpe, 470 U. S., at 686 (in determining the reasonable duration of a stop, “it [is] appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued [the] investigation”). Our decisions in Caballes and Johnson heed these constraints. In both cases, we concluded that the Fourth Amendment tolerated certain unrelated investigations that did not lengthen the roadside detention. Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff). In Caballes, however, we cautioned that a traffic stop “can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket. 543 U. S., at 407. And we repeated that admonition in Johnson: The seizure remains lawful only “so long as [unrelated] inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.” 555 U. S., at 333. See also Muehler v. Mena,544 U. S. 93,101 (2005) (because unrelated inquiries did not “exten[d] the time [petitioner] was detained[,] . . . no additional Fourth Amendment justification . . . was required”). An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But contrary to Justice Alito’s suggestion, post, at 4, n. 2, he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individ-ual. But see post, at 1–2 (Alito, J., dissenting) (premising opinion on the dissent’s own finding of “reasonable suspicion,” although the District Court reached the opposite conclusion, and the Court of Appeals declined to consider the issue). Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes “ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 408. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. See Delaware v. Prouse,440 U. S. 648–660 (1979). See also 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §9.3(c), pp. 507–517 (5th ed. 2012). These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Prouse, 440 U. S., at 658–659; LaFave, Search and Seizure §9.3(c), at 516 (A “warrant check makes it possible to determine whether the apparent traffic violator is wanted for one or more previous traffic offenses.”). A dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at “detect[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Indianapolis v. Edmond,531 U. S. 32–41 (2000). See also Florida v. Jardines,569 U. S. 1, ___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 7–8). Candidly, the Government acknowledged at oral argument that a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission. In advancing its de minimis rule, the Eighth Circuit relied heavily on our decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms,434 U. S. 106 (1977) (per curiam). See United States v. $404,905.00 in U. S. Currency, 182 F. 3d 643, 649 (CA8 1999). In Mimms, we reasoned that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle. 434 U. S., at 110–111. See also Maryland v. Wilson,519 U. S. 408–415 (1997) (passengers may be required to exit vehicle stopped for traffic violation). The Eighth Circuit, echoed in Justice Thomas’s dissent, believed that the imposition here similarly could be offset by the Government’s “strong interest in interdicting the flow of illegal drugs along the nation’s highways.” $404,905.00 in U. S. Currency, 182 F. 3d, at 649; see post, at 9. Unlike a general interest in criminal enforcement, however, the government’s officer safety interest stems from the mission of the stop itself. Traffic stops are “especially fraught with danger to police officers,” Johnson, 555 U. S., at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted), so an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely. Cf. United States v. Holt, 264 F. 3d 1215, 1221–1222 (CA10 2001) (en banc) (recognizing officer safety justification for criminal record and outstanding warrant checks), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Stewart, 473 F. 3d 1265, 1269 (CA10 2007). On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that mission. See supra, at 6–7. So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours. But cf. post, at 2–3 (Alito, J., dissenting). Thus, even assuming that the imposition here was no more intrusive than the exit order in Mimms, the dog sniff could not be justified on the same basis. Highway and officer safety are interests different in kind from the Government’s endeavor to detect crime in general or drug trafficking in particular. The Government argues that an officer may “incremental[ly]” prolong a stop to conduct a dog sniff so long as the officer is reasonably diligent in pursuing the traffic-related purpose of the stop, and the overall duration of the stop remains reasonable in relation to the duration of other traffic stops involving similar circumstances. Brief for United States 36–39. The Government’s argument, in effect, is that by completing all traffic-related tasks expeditiously, an officer can earn bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation. See also post, at 2–5 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (embracing the Government’s argument). The reasonableness of a seizure, however, depends on what the police in fact do. See Knowles, 525 U. S., at 115–117. In this regard, the Government acknowledges that “an officer always has to be reasonably diligent.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 49. How could diligence be gauged other than by noting what the officer actually did and how he did it? If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of “time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. As we said in Caballes and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” Ibid. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as Justice Alito supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6.III The Magistrate Judge found that detention for the dog sniff in this case was not independently supported by individualized suspicion, see App. 100, and the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings, see id., at 112–113. The Court of Appeals, however, did not review that determination. But see post, at 1, 10–12 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (resolving the issue, nevermind that the Court of Appeals left it unaddressed); post, at 1–2 (Alito, J., dissenting) (upbraiding the Court for addressing the sole issue decided by the Court of Appeals and characterizing the Court’s answer as “unnecessary” because the Court, instead, should have decided an issue the Court of Appeals did not decide). The question whether reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining Rodriguez beyond completion of the traffic infraction investigation, therefore, remains open for Eighth Circuit consideration on remand.* * * For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.It is so ordered.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 13–9972. Argued January 21, 2015—Decided April 21, 2015 Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog alerted. Rodriguez was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle on the ground, among others, that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the motion. He found no reasonable suspicion supporting detention once Struble issued the written warning. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, however, he concluded that prolonging the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was for that reason permissible. The District Court then denied the motion to suppress. Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting that the seven or eight minute delay was an acceptable “de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty,” the court declined to reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning. Held: 1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 , than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323 . Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407. Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 –659. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission. In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs, the Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 . The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms. The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete his traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful,” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop. . 2. The determination adopted by the District Court that detention for the dog sniff was not independently supported by individualized suspicion was not reviewed by the Eighth Circuit. That question therefore remains open for consideration on remand. P. 9. 741 F. 3d 905, vacated and remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined as to all but Part III. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
examiningexaminingexamining Trek Trek Trek restrictions restrictions attendant restrictions restrictions investorexaminingexamining 1/2 1/2examiningexamining noise 1984ê pill pill pill WI pill examine examine pill pillSPSP pillexaminingexaminingSPexaminingexamining Deliveryexamining Delivery 1/2 Delivery Delivery Delivery Erkenntnisse Erkenntnisse Delivery pill pill 1984AppApp pill pillApp pillApp examine pill 1984 examine pillApp 1984 pill pill examine pillSP examine pill Erkenntnisse pill examineSP pillSP pill pillexaminingSPSPexamining pill examine Delivery pill Delivery Ausstattung Delivery Delivery 1984 1984ê 1984 1984 1984 examine 1984 pill examine strawberry pill pill strawberry examine examine examinesmallest pill NASA pill NASASPSP examine examine 1984 1984model 1984 examinemodel 1984ê examine examine Ausstattung pill examineAMA pill pill Ausstattung examine pill noise pill 1984 1984 noise pillê NASA 1984 1984 pill 1984AMA 1984 pill seafood 1984 pill bladder 1984 1984 NASA 1984 bladder bladder seafood Basis Basis Basis Karl Basis Basis Erkenntnisse Basis 1984 1984 Basis Basis pill Basis Basis 1/2 Basis Basis 1984 1/2 Basis 1984 Basis 1/2 Ausstattung Ausstattung 1984 Ausstattung Ausstattungmaybe Basis 1984gedruckt presents 1984 1984 presents 1984 presents Ausstattung 1984 presents NASA presents presents presents 1984 investor Delivery 1984 Delivery 1984 Ausstattung 1984 Deliverymodelmodel NASA investor investor pill investor investor investor 1984 1984 investor investormodel investor investor Israel investor investorcontractmodel investor pillêê investor pill pillAMAêêAMA pillAMAAMAAMA pill 1984 Launch 1984 1984contract 1984 pill NASA NASA pill pillê Ribbon Ribbon pill pill NASA 1984 investor pill 1984 pillê pill 1984 NASA pillê 1984 pillcontract pill pill Basis pill pillsmallest NASA Basis pill 1984 Basis investor pill aero pill pill aero aero aero pill NASA aero pill aero NASA aero investor pill NASAAMA pill investor NASA pill 1984 investor 1984 pillmodel 1984 1984 aero pill 1984model pill pill 1/2 pill 1/2ê pill Delivery pill 1984 Delivery pill Basis 1984 pill Delivery 1984 Basis 1984 NASA Basis Basis strawberry Basis BasisApp 1/2AppApp 1984sait 1984saitcontract 1984contractcontract 1/2 pill pillncy Basis Basis examine Basis 1984SP 1984 BasisAMA Basis Basis bull 1/2 1984praxis 1984modelmodel 1984 investor Basismodelmodel investor 1984êmodel 1984model facult 1984 1984 facultmodelmodelmodel Basis pillApp Basis pill 1/2 Basis pill Erkenntnisse 1984SPSP 1984SPImaginImagin Basis 1984 investormodelmodelê pillSP 1984 1984sait pill 1984Imagin 1984 1984 1/2 1984 1984smallest 1984modelsmallestmodelmodelsmallest pill pill held held held examine examinemodel held heldmodel heldmodelmodel 1/2 1/2modelmodelSPmodel pill investor pillmodel 1/2 pill 1984SPmodelmodel pill 1/2 1984 pillImagin pillSPê 1/2 1/2 1984SP pill 1984smallest pillmodel pill facult pill pill Delivery 1/2êê pillê 1/2 pillêsmallest pill examine NASA pillsmallest pill 1984ê Delivery pillsmallest 1984 pillsmallest examine pill Basissmallest pillsmallest facult pill Basis investor Basis pillsmallest Basis pillSP Basis 1984AMA Basis pill investor Basis Basis investor 1984 BasisApp pill 1984 held 1984 1984Imaginmodel 1984 Basis facult pill facult 1984 1/2 1/2 BasisSPSPSP BasisAppsmallest pillSPImagin pill 1984 aero 1984Imagin pill examine 1984smallestImagin pill BasisImagin 1984 investorsmallestmodel 1984 pillsait pill 1/2 investor pillImagin investor 1984 investor aero 1984modelcontract 1984 1984 Israel 1984 1984 Ashley 1984 pill 1/2 1/2 pillsmallest 1/2model pillsmallestê pill 1/2model NASA pill investormodel pillImaginê pill investor 1984contract pill 1984 1/2 investor 1984modelê 1984 investorê pill bladder pill pill neighbour pill pillmodel NASA 1984 pill aeroê pill examine aero pillAMA NASA pillAMA pillImagin 1984 Basis pillmodel examine 1984 Basismodel pill 1984 noise 1984 1984 Erkenntnisse 1984 pill Basis facult Basis Basis facult 1/2 BasisApp Basis 1984saitsait 1984 $15 $15 1984 1984 intermediu pill pill Ashley 1/2 pill birou birou pillSP 1/2 Basis investor NASA 1984contract investor 1984Imagincontract 1984ê 1/2 1984 défini 1984 1984 bladder 1984 bladder pill 1984 facult pill 1984 Ashley pill BasisSP BasisSP 1/2 1984 investorSP 1984 pillAMA 1984Imagin investormodel 1984ImaginêImagin 1984 1/2ê 1984modelImagin 1984 facult facult 1984 facult 1984 Basiscontract pill Basis 1/2 pill BasisAMA pill Basis Erkenntnisse Erkenntnisse 1984 1984SP Basis pillImagin Basis BasisSP 1984 1/2AMA pillsait Basis investor investorImaginImagin 1984SPcontract 1/2 1984contract Ashley 1984 1984 défini pill pill défini pill 1/2 NASAêSPSP investor 1/2Imagin pill investor Delivery investor 1984 examine investor 1984 neighbour 1984 1984App 1984 1984 Lynch 1984model 1/2model 1984 NASAmodelmodel facultmodel pillmodelê NASASP 1984Imaginsait 1984 1984 birou 1984modelSP 1984saitmodel 1984sait NASA investorImagin pill facultê 1984 1/2 NASA 1984ê bladderImagin pill pill facultSP 1984 investor Erkenntnisse pillêSP 1984AMA pillmodelAMA pill Erkenntnisse Erkenntnisse pill 1984 Erkenntnisse pill Basisê BasisSP pill 1/2SP pill Basis attractions pillSPAMA 1984 BasisImagin investor investorsait investor 1984 Erkenntnissemodel 1984praxis pill 1984praxismodel 1984SP facult 1984 investorsait 1984 NASA NASA 1984Imagin bladder facult 1984 pill facult Basis pill NASA Basis 1984smallest NASA pill Basis NASA pillSP investor 1984AMAê pill NASA Erkenntnisse pill pill ErkenntnisseSPSP 1/2 pillSP attractions 1984SPê Basis pill attractions pill 1984 birou pill pill birou 1984 pillSP NASA pill 1/2Imagin