actually go on give you more time if you need it that you know we just sell we have certainly read the briefs we've read and we've read most most of the other cases if you have some cases that you bring up that we have not read we will certainly consider those cases respect chicago police officer keith caliph that received a tip of a man with a gun from an unidentified woman who approached him somewhere on the street he immediately drove to another location approach my client mr rinehart first him and found a gun in his waistband mr reinhart was convicted of aggravated on lawful useful weapon and defacing the identification marks on a firearm but officer caliphate violated mr rinehart's fourth amendment right against unreasonable seizures by speeding off to detain and frisk him without first asking the unknown and unaccountable informants the obvious questions who she was how she could be located again or how she'd come by the information that she was her provid trial state feel to present any evidence that mr reinhart possessed a loaded gun off his own land a necessary element of aggravated u w war that mr wright heard knew that the serial number on the gun had been defaced a necessary element of  facing a fire or both because the state failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and because the evidence it did present was obtained through a violation of the fourth amendment this court should reverse outright both of mr rang hearts convictions and mr owen hart  or first of all in miller the gun in that case was actually produced not by a frisk but after the defendant had escaped from the police that had been attempting to frisk him it fell out of his waistband while he was running away as a result of that i don't think that the is actually presented to that chords a straightforward issue of the legality of the search secondly the no of course wasn't presented with the precise comparison of the risk of consequences for a false technical meaning of that term sir yes if you're going to say on an anonymous tip that requires corroboration anonymous to the extent that his name was mentioned or the office you know was but in fact it was given he says stop the police officer on the street sense for the reason that the purposes of this anonymity rule are that the police have to have some reason to believe that an informant is telling the truth before they simply assume that he or she is for instance  be reliable is generally considered to be reliable when the police knows who the person is or otherwise has a way of potentially imposing consequences on this person for  honor that's a different situation a confidential important informant is a you know somebody who the police know who they are you know who to find them again they just simply don't want to reveal that information to the public you the case the best approach our position is the united states supreme court's decision in florida versus jail now that case did involve you know this telephone informant but what's important in jail is the logic behind the rule that the court created the court indicated that for two reasons the telephone call or in that case the police could not simply assume that the caller was telling the truth first of all because the police did not know the informants identity of the sesame the informant didn't have a history of reliable tips so the police had no evidence that this person had a tendency to tell them the truth second because the police had no reliable way of locating this person in the event the tip grew false the informant faced no serious risk of consequences in the event they had to put it turned out to be false and consequently the police had no reason to simply assume that the informant had an incentive to tell them the truth in other words that there was a risk to the informant if the informant wasn't telling the truth now all of those factors at least one of those factors a says right in the case where just an average citizen steps forward on the street and the police have some way of locating the cursing and such as the person offers their whether in advance before conducting the search the police have a reason to believe that the informant has some reason to tell the truth obviously any sort of corroboration that you get after conducting the searches results of conducting the search doesn't establish was they had no reason to assume that the informant was telling the truth in that sense no amount of detail that the informant gave the police unless it was supported by corroboration before the search was conducted gave the police any reason to believe that the informant was telling the truth regardless of how much detail the informant provided and if it could have just been made up now on a second issue even assuming that the informant headbang otherwise shown to be reliable for instance by facing a significant risk of consequences if the trip turned out to be false there's another problem with the chip in this case which is that the informant did not display the basis of knowledge how she knew that she had now the you're asking does the fact that the informant said that there was a black handgun indicates the police that she was saying basically that she saw a handgun on the end no not explicitly some they could have told her there was a black handgun and also you know most  v the police received not one tip but six tips from different people the course of less than a minute a person two hundred feet away was displaying a gun now  these informants individually have a history of reliable tips the fact that they're all corroborating each other suggests it's the police that they're likely giving the police a true story or the one you know a false tip is you know it's possible six in a row is beginning to get increasingly unlikely second because there were six tipsters and because the search was conducted such a short distance away from where the police were receiving the tips initially two hundred feet and the police indicated that some of the tips because of that the police had reason to believe that if not all at least some of the informants had a reason to fear consequences in the event that they gave a false tip and hence an incentive to testify truthfully and as soon as one of those informants has an incentive to testify truthfully that's enough for the police to you know reasonably conclude that the person is telling the truth and conduct a stop and investigation based on that basis but in this case because there was only one informant neither of  those factors was present because there was only one informant without a history of reliable tips and no corroboration from other tipsters the police had no reason to simply assume that the informant was likely telling the truth and because there was only one informant that they drove away from getting well out of sight by the time of the search there was no reason to assume that they that the defendant feared reasonably that there was a significant chance that the informant would face consequences turned out to be false so in both of those for both of those reasons the existence of multiple informants and a beat was a critical distinction between both between a b in the present case now i wa factor that recently gives the police reason to believe that an informant is telling the truth either you know a history of reliable tips that the informant can be located again in some way or anything else is sufficient to establish a reason to believe the informants and therefore reasonable suspicion and there could be a lot of other ways that could be done for instance if an informant were seen more when a wrong or painting a house before they came over to get that set the police would have reason to believe that there was some sort of connection to that location people don't generally do chores just out of the goodness of their heart for strangers they have reason to believe that person either lived there or worked for somebody there were knew somebody there and would give them a place to start with their investigation similarly even if the police don't know precisely where to find somebody but let's so the police are are you know they were beaten a regular area and they know somebody by sight they don't know the name but they recognize their features it's somebody they seen around multiple times because they've seen him around multiple times even though they don't have a name they have reason to believe they can probably run into this person again because it's happened multiple times before but in this case the police offered none of that testimony it was just a person who they didn't know that approached them somewhere on the street and we required in order for the state to demonstrate for purposes of the mr lee of testimony then an area was a high crime area otherwise there's too much risk of potential abuse by the police and also the notion of a high crime area being used as a proxy honor and i just don't see precisely that argument the briefs and to be i mean the arguments just not sound you can't frisk anybody that you encounter in a high crime area you know it regardless of whether or not you have a chip or otherwise reliable it would be necessary for the area to be a high crime area if the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that mr ryan hardy had a gun they could have stopped him you know anywhere you know he's in the most crime free of neighborhoods instils stopped him and first and if they had reason to believe they possessed a gun that would mean he was potentially dangerous and that the police needed to protect themselves from their own safety the problem here is simply that the tip itself was not reliable and the president its presence in a high crime area was not sufficient to corroborate the specific information that was provided by informants and give the police reasonable suspicion that he actually did  wright hertz conveyed any evidence that was produced as a result of the frisk including mr rinehart's possession of the don all the statements that he made to the police about the gun afterward should have been suppressed in this case and should be suppressed at any retrial and because but unless the state explains what sort of evidence they think could present a retrial would just be pointlessness court should because of the fourth amendment violation reversed both mr rinehart's convictions out right now moving on even  land at the time he possessed the gun and it is an element of the offense that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt standard for noise supreme court and people versus loud in one nine hundred ninety eight now the only evidence that the state presented a reasonable doubt where on the block mr wang hart was whether he was in a building whether he was on the lawn whether he was on a sidewalk whether he was in the street and then the meaning of this english phrase in this context should be clear and can be seen from a number of you know the basic law experiments revealing our intuitions about how we use the words this court room is on the one hundred block of the north lasalle we right now are on the one hundred block of north with cell would not be under unusual to say that and that statement would be true further imagine in this case if after the police had received the same tip that they did in this case officer there's somebody on the twenty one hundred block of south millard avenue who has  say they'll go check it out they drive over discover a guy sitting in a lawn chair on his lawn holding a black handgun and sitting next to a sign you know saying you know the don't tread on the flag in the sign saying united nations out of chicago we the informant have been lying no she the police were the found something that matched what the informant said that they could expect to find a person on the twenty one hundred block of south miller death you who had a black arrest now because of this the trial court's assumption that by on the block officer caliph it meant to testify that mr rinehart was specifically on the sidewalk or on the street it just wasn't a reasonable conclusion in light of the you know the english phrase that he used the word assuming that the court was following the prosecutor's unsupported suggestion in fact mr officer caliph it was testifying in some sort of you know nonstandard dialect of english there was nothing to support that in the record either way there was no evidence that mr breitbart was not on his own lawn the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not on his own land at the time of the offense through more even assuming that there were some proof offor that he was on the sidewalk or in the street under lobster you're on your own land even if that lands accessible to the public if you have some sort of fee interest in the land and because there was no proof that mr rinehart was not in front of his own house he could have been on  sidewalk or street that he owned in fee simple under a common law dedication for both these reasons there was no proof that mr rinehart was not on his own land and no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of  elements of the offense that a defendant has to possess a gun with defaced identification marks and specifically the serial number on the receiver which is more important than any other identification arms under eleanor a rules of statutory construction  implicitly be read to require a mental state for every element of the offense now because section a of the subsection a of the defacing a firearm statute indicates that  intent or knowledge are sufficient implicitly that is the standard as applied to every elements of the offense so there must at least be knowledge of the defendants that every element of the offense is satisfied  conclusion that's contrary to the basic due process laws established by the united states supreme court in a pending on under pressure any element any facts that needs to be proved in order to increase the punishments on a criminal defendant is an element of offense that has to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and the stanley court by saying that there could be a fact which bowron the commission of offense without being an element of the defense was simply was required this case furthermore the mere possession of the gun enough is not enough to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the person with the gun knew that the marks on the  and this basic rules established by the only supreme court in the case of people versus greco saying that possession on loan cannot support a permissive inference that a defendant you and comparing this case to the rule establishing greco there's no reason to conclude that a person who merely possesses a gun knows anything about its serial numbers on a gun or would specifically look at the gun and see the  and the addition to the sea presented no additional evidence in this case that reinhart would have worked if the gun did work at the gun in this case from should've been aware of the fact that the serial number was defaced and it would have been extremely easy for the state to do so if they had been done and likely will have the gun in any case of this sort only have to do is offer into evidence let the fact finder see for itself what those marks look like and whether somebody is likely to take notice them they don't want to put the gun in the general all they have to do take a ruler put it next to the gun take a polaroid the jury can see for themselves now in this case there was no such evidence presented to the jury in the resident testimony regarding the size of the mark  and how likely it would be for somebody to notice and right of that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr ryan hart was aware of the serial number on the gun was defaced and that conviction must be reversed and once the court as any other questions at this time i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for about thank you  assistant state's attorney adam goldfield appearing on behalf of the people defending his i q this morning three points and the people would respond to them in the order raised ride to the stop of defendant a concerned citizen approached offices and informed them that a black male and yellow pads and a white shirt with a black guy on was at a particular location as expected the officers took that information and went to the location where they found offended in that particular outfit  when they approached they had to stop and under people very milla but in this case in addition to that defendant was with another man who proceeded to flee through the high crime neighborhood and one also had to breakaway to area and already they have the ability to stop defendant when they've approached before the men ran under people female but this is just additional on top of that for this particular case and how this does not apply because house is not holding that you need the extra information this was a case where the trout trier of fact clearly rejected the idea that this was a high crime neighborhood when the officer presented it so the finding of fact was it wasn't and then the people were on appeal and the burden was on then so it's a much different case it was saying th trial was just the police officer saying that of course it is a so so introduces himself of course has his experience and what not but right the officer is just testifying that this is a high crime neighborhood and also defended when officers identified themselves as jail just as you just now mentioned going to jail was a phone call an anonymous tip over the phone and case law clearly distinguishes as explained in the people's brief that they concerned citizen who comes face to face with us on the street is presumed reliable especially compared to a completely anonymous person who just calls up over the phone and furthermore jail is distinguished because in jail this phone call the tip was made but the timeframe of when it was responded to and who received it and the whole with the white shirt in the trier of fact clearly found that to be a distinct outfit and said jael really the quality of a chip as an anonymous phone call it was distinguished in many cases from the one here where it's a concerned citizen face to face and just the nature of what was the information given and how the police respond to it is all different so really jail does not really seem to apply in this case and what this court should really look to his people be milla in recognizing that there's a reasonable  sufficient suspicion to perform the stop and given the nature of the stop a gun crime and high crime neighborhood and also this imminent threat to public safety all together there's reasonable safety reason here to perform the protective putte down record in the light was favorable to people and give the proper deference for the findings and credibility determinations of the trial where defense counsel says that this court should simply disregard the understanding of the trial court as to what on the block meant and impose  personal understanding that on the block mean it could be on your own property that it's just not a valid path to go down in defense counsel cites no authority for that it in terms of what the trier of fact understood here it was clear that on the block was understood to mean defend was on the block on the block if for example a person saw someone on the block in this context and with this witness to try to track clearly understood this to me that he was on the public way and that's how this court should interpret that's not i'm in line different address outside of one that he was arrested on but the people only raise that arrest report in their brief to set the record straight it's not actually evidence there was no testimony regarding the specific address of defendant's residen that we talk about on the block we don't know exactly where the defendant with yours if it was on his range or on the public when we really know what the understanding of on the block is that he's on the public way and him being on the public way under people he kelly which is again cited in the people's brief you only need circumstantial evidence to show the defendant is not on his own property and to be on the road of the or the public way that's sufficient circumstantial evidence so in that case clearly it wouldn't be enough to just have the circumstantial evidence is what you don't have the circumstantial evidence that he's on a public way you have money alone and then needs to be some sort of direct evidence showing that he's not on his own property or hasn't got the property interest in that l g way he lives here this is much more in line with the holding in people he cali in that general case well it says you just need to show circumstantial evidence and it's sufficient to show that they're on the public way you don't need to show this is no defense counsel would be creating a new legal requirement for direct evidence if the people had to go get property plats for public streets and public roads to show that the fence defendant didn't only them but that required doesn't exist it's just circumstantial evidence is sufficient and he had defendant on a public way help me out for a second was this if it was this defendant in front of this house or next to his house again on it even though he was on the block with the on the block in front of this house right next to south or was he on the block down the street or towards the quad you know one of the evidence in the case did not explicitly state whether he was outside his house or even where he resided the only thing was in the common law record which was not part of the evidence which defense counsel raised to say that he lived on the twenty one hundred block and the people clarified to say that the arrest report reflects he has an it was understood to mean that he was on the public area of the block not on his private property on the block was specifically understood to mean out on the block on the block he's he's on the public way it's not on the lawn it's not like a loud show this is just a case where defendants on the public would it and the court would would have to exercise its deference towards the trial court in findings of fact and and agree the defendant was indeed on the public way the far some quick marks remarks and rebuttal your honour's the first of the states argues that there should be less corroboration required here for an anonymous tip because there of the risk to the public presented by the non this argument w specifically presented to the supreme court in people vs j l that there should be essentially an exception to a standard reasonable suspicion requirements in the case of gun possessory offenses and the court rejected  there's some reason believe that there's an actual interim urgency like a gun fight it's about to break out the mere possession of a gun does not lessen the amount of suspicion that has to be shown for a search the state  they gave the description of the person isn't relevant because it isn't relevant to the reliability of the ted because regardless of whether or not the tape is sufficient to pick out a particular person well the tape contains some additional predictive information that the police can corroborate that would suggest the informant has a way of knowing about conceal details of crime there's no corroboration in the tip is no more reliable than it otherwise would be also the state misstates the harris case slightly saying and that case the trial court determines that the area was not a high crime area although that was true the only testimony and harris regarding or not the area was a high crime area came from one state witness and was not contradicted in the general rule is that effect finder can not ignore one contradicted testimony unless that's in some way inherently  the police had reason to believe that the informant essentially could be traced again by the police if the police wanted to that there was a serious chance of that and that consequently the informant had a reason to tell the truth of the stage who was asked what evidence you know the basic prosecution unless it when the state doesn't know it has to make the arguments in order to win the fourth amendment argument even if it doesn't think that there's any serious chance that this informant is anything but gone in light of that the reasonable and proper result in this case is simply that this tip was unreliable because the police did not have any reason to conclude that the informants had an incentive to tell the truth or history of telling the truth no answers any further questions i would urge this court