situation i would st like to point to the unassailable fact that officer whining had been directed by motel staff to a different location and there was a suspicion that he was  there to follow up on some activity namely transients possibly be terminating possibly a white individual and so as he's proceeding into this parking lot he happens to encounter my client another gentleman who happened to be white sitting on a low wall and there was absolutely nothing going on the officer stops and the very st thing out of his mouth is perhaps is there a drug deal going on and once you accept that fact in the offices had we would look at what a reasonable person would would relieve isn't that the test i submit that i think when you have objective evidence of the and the other gentleman and certainly mr brown would feel objective in case not able to believe it so he was seized from that point then of course for the officers benefit there was  search and everything question well he was certainly already searching you could argue he was searching for a weapon to to for officer safety reasons as we always frequently hear but that he and then he goes into the pocket yes i believe certainly by that point that we have a clear violation and that there was no probable cause no issue with respect officer safety he's already what counsel my question renders are you saying that there was a now before you put his hand in the pocket that's that's not that's not what happened but i was trying   i don't again speaking as an advocate i don't find that persuasive simply based on all of the facts that we have that the government has helpfully provided the footage and almost right there he's pulling out you'll see the officer pulling out lighter pulled cash from a couple of different parts of this clothing and of course the matter at issue here this alleged heroin think that that should have been granted at that point in time that i think i'll stop here and i will reserve two minutes two to respond if i us because we're not disputing that there was no initial pat down here but hill says in his many words that terri is not limited to a pat down it uses the phrase any limited intrusion reasonably designed to find weapons and i take some issue with my opponent's characterization of the record this point it's not that this officer stands the defendant up immediately rummage through his pockets there's no question terry says the purpose of a frisk or the search that it authorizes is not to get evidence of prine it's to ensure officer safety all of them for you though is th brown case because sid bron says right on page sixty five dollars and faults the officer in that case for doing precisely what the officer did in this case which is going forward and going straight into the pocket it says in this case with no attempt at an initial limited exploration for arms patrolman martin thrust his hand into sybrand spark and pocket and took from him envelopes of heroin the search was not reasonably limited in scope to the accomplishment of the only goal which might conceivably have justified its inception has acted overall or not not at all your honor and i am familiar with and with it in controlling but i would respectfully alternative hold alternative holding and i understand you know that there's a holding that ends on page sixty four but then you go on to the next page and the court says even if when doe that  grounds to search and then goes on and says there's a scope problem that's the part of sobrante that is a problem for you and how do you get around it i do you will you know i all acknowledge it's not an easy thing but what i'm saying here is it's supposed to be totality of the circumstances the reasonableness of the situation the officer in a siber on just goes right into a pocket pulls out a glassine envelope that can't possibly have a weapon in it in this case the bill even before that even if there wasn't a technical pat down you at least had an effort to make it a constructive one the officer you know what terry's aimed at as a general rummaging this officer he just is focused on that right pocket he specifically asked the defendant what's in your pocket in offenses on not quite sure which is somewhat of a suspicious answer i mean he gives the defendant a chance to explain what's going on in this court has other precedent that says we give admitted he was on bond admitted he just got out of jail he's got an unopened tool right next to him which this officer says in his twenty three years of experience is the kind of common thing that is barter for drugs and you know the seven minute and forty five seconds you see this movement but even assuming that he had cause to be worried and to be worried about that pocket that there might be a weapon there wouldn't a pat down of the pocket have been sufficient video that these this defendant he had his pants were very baggy i mean he asked soon what's in that pocket the defendant gives him a very suspicious answer almost a non secular i don't know i mean pill says you know any any reasonable but it intrusion in the evil that that rule is after is a general rumaging and i know my opponent he characterized that is this you see the officer it doesn't go left pocket it doesn't go in the back pocket he goes exactly where he saw that furtive movement he doesn't fiddle around with his hand in one movie pulls out something we know it had a net weight of about eighty six grams that's consistent with what a pocket knife or a small switch blade could be but if you didn't have pat down and he was not you know it wasn't doesn't say anything to the contrary but the problem is he didn't go through that step he just went straight and did the more intrusive search you know again i know it's it's not something we see very often but i mean it's interesting when you look at footnote thirteen of terry terry talks about a pat down being extremely intrusive you touch people who are pits they're growing you're right there i mean this was objectively a very it was almost instantaneous it was one fluid moment the officer says i'm going to check he lets them know it's coming after giving an opportunity to explain it and hill is you know hill has not been overruled in this circuit does not have a r on yes well those are the facts there but what we're relying on more importantly is the law of hill hill is you know this officer i mean if you talk about good faith reliance hill says it's not limited to a pat down those are the facts of hill obviously if we have facts like that here it would be a better case for us but i don't know that that's necessarily you know what how good therapist is how did you know distinguish said brown and which side of the line do you fall on reasonable suspicion that defendant was all armed well that's the st holding that ends on page sixty four so are we to read her as saying that we can throw out the other part of chevron as as dicta we don't need to pay any attention to that no i don't think so but you know that the court until didn't feel that that moved the ball in that case when the other thing they said about it is that it was a pocket search case and this wasn't a pocket search case and help the nd thing they said  loses index finger into his right pocket after having not four minutes a gone by why they will while they were waiting below warrant check mr brown was comfortable enough to have a one minute phone call with somebody right in front of the police and then suddenly while this officer is talking to mr bartlett i e what it looks like his attention is not on the defendant he makes this furtive movement and after he's heard the officer call in for a record search i mean if you know those facts not even remotely close in cibber on and i think superman has to be read in relation to those facts where that officer never once on the record consider one dollar separate times that there was no fear for safety in the setting but in response to my colleague's comments i i don't think there's any doubt about where the officer was going once he had contacted the front differentials whether it was very shortly thereafter and of course if there was