that anything criminal was actually occurring from the very outset this was an unlawful detention and stop at work when the police commuted him to approach their vehicle and detained him up against the car without a reasonable belief of criminal activity defendant and his cohorts were doing that wasn't there probable cause to arrest them just for that for moving the city of chicago trust him yes i think the trash cans they have wheels in there to be mov usually says it is but as to terry stop once these guys started running there you got your problem it became probable cause that some point i don't think it's a fair characterization of the facts to say that they ran the police got outside of the car commanded them to approach it was confusion and ultimately base admitted to the police reaction it was no capture of these men on case law distinguishes like thomas and will that's when these men first see the police  sight a lot of cases that talk about that these men could fall within something that's called a very large category of presumably in this in travelers so are you trying to tell us that there's a lot of people out there in this in traverse pushing trash cans around two thirty in the morning and that they have in the city when the police come up and they all attempts scatter i think any person stop first of all if you're thirty in the morning i don't know that they acted guilty i think that's equally suspicious backing and assent to be confused and frightened the police stuff and i do think it's a large heavy container with wheels in the lid it probably is very convenient for many people to use to transport things i was not aware if you're on the street that that's a violation of the law i think it's commonly used and that purpose so yes many innocent travelers that do that and also as we cited in the briefs when you have a large it's easier to bring the trash can to that location which is us an example of when it would be necessary to move the trash i think we've all seen people junkers or you know people who are collecting scrap other things like that might be pushing here we're talking about a city of chicago cubs it's got a serial number it's it's you know paid for by the city provided to the taxpayers for their use but it whether it's seditious power garbage cans or heavy and the shopping cart or home depot shopping or if there are people out there using it they're using somebody else's property however they came into possession it could have been registered to edward the fact that the sed it was in his possession and the state took down evidence that could have rebutted that and did not use it certainly also substantiate that it was his possession the right to use it there's no evidence to rebut that and i think in both instances the trash can or a shopping cart it matters a lot if there was if it had been abandoned prior to the time that these individuals were using it many shopping carts are abandoned you can often there's like a in the city of chicago website you can request an additional trash can because your trash him has been must there's many your client and his cohorts the other one looked inside the receptacle and one upon he sees a bunch of clothing that has price tags and and plastic security chicago garbage that he was walking down a public street lawfully where he had the right to be pushing a container with a lid on what the property right to the half he was in possession of it and possibly all out every single piece of evidence was in it the suppression hearing shows that he had the right to have a legitimate expectation of privacy of privacy and that excuse was pushing the trash can he had the lid closed he was in actual possession of that a reasonable person so your position is not really being in number was registered to him or one of his cohorts also it may have been a b and then the police did not take any steps you ever but that evidence every single piece of evidence presented on the legitimate expectation of privacy supports that he had that every time there's of that's three interested in this case he was walking down a public street with the lid closed no citizen would believe the police or anyone could come and simply just open up the lid and see what was inside so i do believe in this case he certainly had said because of community care taking is must be completely divorced from crime investigation examples are the chicago cop the wisconsin police officer after observing that he's been a current student believe they all carry guns he went to check the glove compartment to make sure the gunman leaned in the wrong hands you cannot use any suspect when there's an investigatory purpose it's not community care taking officer got of said i thought their behavior lists fishless i wanted to conduct a field interview that's the chip for a cited in the brief but it's not community care taking investigating a crime and if it had been community care taking the questions were do you guys need help is that your trash can what's going on and if they didn't want to answer they were free to leave this was get out of the car turn on the lights guys come over to the car i'll chain you on the car and search their possessions without asking them any questions at all to allow them to explain what was going on and subsequently they developed all this fruit which was used to actually violated by the circuit self not simply aggrieved so by the introduction of damaging evidence in this case it was defendant's burden to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the city of a brown trash can and he said with a serial number with the city of chicago written on top of it it's undisputed that this is the city's trash to further the application of the reasonable expectation of privacy factors outlined by the supreme court and people b johnson affirmed the trial court's notion that this was in no reasonable expectation of privacy in the city's trash as council estate stood up here attempted to essentially infer that there may have been possession or may have been property interests that's simply not the standard it was their burden to demonstrate that either they had ownership or the right to use this particular piece of property on this occasion other patients so as to exclude others from actually being able to to look inside that simply has not been met the trial court was proud within its means to evaluate all the factors in this particularly case and say that this was the city's trash  which these men had no right to take from them as well spot as as this court as alluded to those trash cans are to remain within their spot for residents to use and to be picked up by streets and sanitation not to be taken down residential streets simply because somebody wants to take them and store items of the air to remain in place nothing in the record nor an appeal has changed that were they investigating a crime then the police when they saw these men pushing the cart down the street decided to have an interaction with them was that were they looking into impassibility of a crank because they were pushing something that they didn't own well i as your honour's have alluded to this that the officers were within their means to do that simply seeing a city a trash can which is a violation meanest ordinance would have been appropriate in this case but the officers were not actually investigating as a testimony shows you what they saw was what was suspicious behavior so they activated their lights which identified themselves as officers asked the men to come over to the vehicle this would be properly characterize as a consensual encounter if these men were doing that when the men began to argue amongst themselves walk away from each other walk away from the trash can then the officers asked a second time in a louder voice to come over to the vehicle the men x the actions of the three engender in the officers some additional suspicion that like furtive movements to justify an escalation at that point you disagree with that do you think it should affect our judgment here today what the facts are very close i can't necessarily answer that definitively yes or no in the sense that the facts a show that there was at a different timeline of events so after the second request and they came over they are also did say they were not free to leave at that point that would not change the analysis here in any way  you produce no evidence it was completely justified based on the facts in and of itself and there's nothing here to detract from that thank you again there's a first i would like to touch a bit on this burden that edward had to prove his legitimate expectation of privacy i would like to note in the cases that have been cited by the state rosenberg in these cases examples of where the defendants were not in with their container at the time of the search so it was expected that they would come in and testify to prove right he had an expectation of privacy in that search and the container search possession every single fact showed that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy the state is kind of as a double edge sword we're not going to ask you any questions about your container and then we'll use that against you at the suppression hearing we take down the serial number that could prove you don't have a possessory interest and then we don't use it there's been no evidence that shows he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the scan second just briefly this was not a consensual account  look at these lakes i've got on but i need comply with my authority if they had been free to leave at that point they were permitted to leave they weren't allowed the officer cannot keep telling them to the vehicle until that was complied it began as a seizure when they ordered them out of when he got out of the car and ordered them to come to the vehicle and that seizure was complete when those and submitted to the orders of the police officer that was not consent and certainly yet they never consented to search the truck and that's the key fact in this case is that and if this had been a proper terry stop there was no justification search that trash and they were not concerned about their safety they did not consent and there was no probable cause it was a fishing expedition to see any officers on bert's case there was anything in sight of the can they had not asked these men any questions at all this was a seizure on the street without questioning of the officers took it upon themselves to see what was going on inside if i can without allowing these men any opportunity to explain hey guys what are you doing that trash can is that your trash can what's going on there was never any of that question here and even after they found that evidence they've been detain them and further by hand having them to each other while they went to go find out if this evidence could be linked to a crime never any to prepare a supplemental brief on that but i would know it if that had been the reason for the stop they did not ask these men any questions about if they were violating that ordinance if they needed to use the trash can for an additional reason and given that they did not what difference would it have made if they had to ask questions and gotten answers if it's against the law to have the garbage fan in the place where they observed it being wheeled down the street by three individuals and we may still conclude that there was a crime that was being committed and that would kind of infortunately for the officers they happened to find the evidence of like and it had to be justified at best it's not simply the crime we're talking about the other crime where he may have well very well had a reason to move that trash can and the officers did not question him his great to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated the police took it upon themselves to investigate activity without  haven't met or will be taken under advisement rather than take a brief recess because judge