please this court william for poor and court appointed counsel in behalf of james kingsborough you are as if i may i'm going to start right with the very first issue whether the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and seize mr kingsborough or whether it was in fact a mere hunch and that takes us very quickly to june seventeenth two thousand and fifteen broad daylight twelve o'clock noon two police officers in baltimore leave in a seven eleven with their coffee and donuts they see young african american men bent over perhaps from around with the front area of his pants and at that point they will want to see if he has a towards the police officer at that time and judge if i'm a answer your question i'm making a race based claim here but as far as the high crime area factor that the court must consider in baltimore as in many of our cities there is a disproportionate amount of african american people that are live in that area by force of circumstance or one of the criteria supposedly for a terry stop is that it's a high crime area and unfortunately by you know birth and or economic circumstance that's where this particular person lives and that's really what the fourth amendment should be guided to protect those people were there is excess of police force  it does it does yes it does yes it does yes and yes and so if i may so you have this and don't represent me but this under the district court i did he was he was well represented trial that's absolutely correct ok the end with that with the what they saw at that point was this young man bent over he's wearing shorts i think that's important and a t shirt and they can see where his hands are at that time they go to render the police officers medical in a marked police car medical aid they think they're going to ask him do you have a medical problem and they asked him that question his response was no and then he went on to say which the monitoring a bracelet which is on his right ankle which is exposed because he's wearing short shorts which means he's under court supervision direct or sentence correct correct when and that's what the record shows it me it was th shows that he i'm not sure they came out as part of that motion is selfish but it's in there that he was clearly under it's own gary sixty yes or he was he clearly he's either under he's under law enforcement monitoring or supervision or or the government lawyer but somebody undertook to explain it the judge mosse but it but this on page sixty one police officer very says supervision and horsemen monitoring law enforcement monitoring or sentence yeah something like that that i send sportif much means that he's been convicted of something been convicted of something and then go and then you then you they  sought because you had these he was wearing shorts and i could see this thing on his ankle and i think the box was only zajac that was not used as a factor either by judge mine was in use as i didn't see is a factor the judge much found as a reason for the stop itself it better stay but but that i'm talking about the what the facts are yes i not what the government's argued what judge march i'm just looking at what the facts are i'm with you but i the first time they ran into the police officers right he said i'm on the box and so it to hearing there was questions about what that means and i wish this had be unfortunately for you i think that's what the law is in this circuit light most favorable to the government at that point the government i suspect is sentence now the government for some this particular case was he told the police officers i'm on the box he wanted to bring it to their attention so when they looked at it that he was not trying to hide anything from that he was bending over and i thought he was sick or correct her correct or something and brief that your client was under judicially mandated supervision we yes and you think of any circumstance either in the federal system or a state system where someone's who's on judicially mandated supervision is permitted to possess a weapon i would agree they cannot wouldn't that be a relevant factor in the context of all the events that happened during police officer to consider if he put the the issue is what for perhaps that's one factor that no one's really mentioned so this court has and i understand that the courts reasoning for that but with all the other factors it's really nothing else there's a lot of people who are in quotes on the box that are walking around  supervised release either in state and or or the federal system itself and they see that coupled with the fact that he brought it out himself they didn't have to ask him about it next to his favor will and and and the police never asked him what do you on the know walking felony if this young man had a gun period he was a walking felony where he was he did cause you know but they didn't know he had a felony conviction that that's correct specifically they knew he was under some kind of supervision of a court right that's correct and in the maybe a sentence it would maybe it was it wouldn't but anyway when the when it's meant if he if it is under judicial supervision and if he has a gun which one of the officers said when he was out in the middle of street before he went in the barbershop at that point then that gave them reasonable suspicion they didn't probable call they didn't see the gun the gun  e they did never saw the gun they never saw the gun but one of the officers when he straightened up that he talked to him use waistband one of the officers turned to the other correct and kirsch and said he's got a gun that's correct that's because he had his right hand he thought in his in his waist areas left hand was hanging loose but that same officer also said it's not unusual especially in a city for young men to be walking around with their hands down the front of their pants as they wa report itself he considered i think i can tell you with judgments that he didn't because it's not articulated but i'm sure that he considered the fact that it's not in his report when he weighed the credibility of police officers which would give me in forty second just my last issue on the jury instruction under under the unique circumstances this particular case where the trial testimony was parrot the the suppression testimony was literally the same testimony which was only at the trial itself so we have the police officers testified identically to all the information as to all the probable cause and everything else as the gun itself that the the the judgments given the instruction that the court is determined that the searches in this case were valid and legal and that was not it's not a sense for instruction it's an instruction the government requested on the issue of problem was with that does as he already indicated to the jury that he's found the officer well what's wrong and the desire to give in under the circumstances this very unique circumstance yes because the only issue in this case are the other poli sim palmer city being truthful we review that for abuse of discretion that well it was objected to it right seaford instruction it's not a form instruction it's an unusual instruction to give and the problem in this particular case is that you're basically telling this jury that i've heard the testimony and i've already found them to be honest and truthful because there's not a suppression issue here a minute or so of the of the your client saying i'm on the box and any went out in the street right they went up a street turned around and came back and he was straight up straight up and at that point the officer concluded he's got a gun he said to his friend i think he's got a gun but i guess he says it based on everything which we just talked about before you say you got to go to him and all that was before he went into the barbershop and at that point he was determine he was going to stop him and if he was if he was under judicial supervision and if it that he had a gun then there was and if the officers reasonably believed that they would have probable cause to arrest him while he w didn't want to say it's not a pellet status as a criminal probation or that necessarily drew suspicion but rather his answer i'm on the box and i know that that was my words and in the brief stacker that it was me who said that that's not an argument the government has made before your eyes i think it's a fact that the court should consider ever made that argument before we made it certainly in the court below in the brief we opposite argument you may might have made that it's it it's not the fact that awkward hunch over and grabbing of the waistband at the moment they saw mr kingsborough they then go in approach mr king's bro and i thought was he was injured they did they don't know they didn't necessarily jump to conclusions your honor and that's the point we like to make in the br in terms of officers who are trained to detect and identify arm characteristics this is not a situation where we're asking the court to rule that anytime someone grabs their waistband that it's automatic reasonable suspicion is primary you know that's not what we're saying either it's it's it's a contractual increase your honor and what they did is they went approached him and they asked mr king's were oh he was ok and he said yeah i'm on the box and the point we're trying to make we don't know anything i'm on the he said yeah i'm on the box that was the exact your honor i think the fact that he's holding his torso that's what they that's where they thought he was injured and they affected the monitoring devices on the ankle that's why they considered it strange they thought if he said i'm on the box it would be some sort of explanation for why he was holding his waistband that was the particular thing they were trying to figure out there was the particular aspect they were trying to investigate is why he was holding his waistband when he said yeah i'm on the box that's why it seems strange it's not it's not just the fact that he said he was a probationer and that's the point you're trying to make in the brief it's not necessarily the unders i still understand why it's strange that he really responded if you were to ask if i was holding my stomach and you ask if i'm ok and i refer to my ankle that would seem to be forthcoming as you could with it and i'm not i'm not disputing that he was cooperative i don't think that's what's at issue here you're on i think it's just that he was giving a non responsive answer and i don't want to get too hard up on this because again it's responsive on the box is a strange answer it and it and i don't want to emphasize it too much that are there are there other facts afterwards they didn't detain him there that's not what that's not the reason why we're here today is not the reason why they arrested him it's a circumstantial inquiry neglect or detention it was probably neglect your honor and obviously as mr cooper a pointed out his predecessor cross examined off the cycle side long and hard about that discovered c judge stacker about the fact that it wasn't listed in the police report and that he testified at the hearing that he did see mr kingsborough appear to reach into his waistband in a just an object and after that he then took his arm and braced with a stiff arm against his waist and these officers are trained in experience to detect firearm possession they know what that means and why did he tell the other officer oh shoot he's got a gun right after that moment when he was in the middle of the intersection any saw him reach into his waistband and appear just an object that's when the light flicked on so to speak they cannot carry a firearm in public you're not allowed to it is not an it's not an what he has it anyway spam you were not allowed to carry it on your he didn't see the gun he came to the conclusion based on his experience with all  qualify it as reasonable suspicion as opposed to a hunch it wasn't a hunch that well i've who if he had a gun if the officer thought he had a gun and formed an opinion i had a gun and if he's under what they're investigating and lines and i disagree your honor was not a hunch it was a reasonable suspicion that mr kingsborough was in possession of a firearm and just came whether it's your point whether he's because he's on supervised release and he can't why they entered rosie from the barber shop to point a couple dozen feet i can really sort of i was up just kind of on a cross the street yeah it's so it's on the southwest corner of the intersection and the officers are on the northeast corner and in their their car is turned around so they have to make a u turn and then they drive up and mr kingsborough is walking swiftly with his left arm swing freely in his right only yeah he's if you review the two officers testimony there are two traffic lanes plus a sidewalk away from a barbershop correct correct your honor and then mr kingsborough walks directly to the barbershop the officers turn around and follow him into the barbershop for the reason that you just described judge that which is that they were concerned that he was bringing a fireman to a public area and obviously th told them he was on the box and that was following him that he was going to go in there on that one i don't think they said he was going to rob the place this is silly i think they said that he was going into a barbershop with people around with a loaded firearm that was the was that as well as the fact that he was going there with a gun i mean it really it's not what it's not particular what the concern is at that point it's the fact that they are if they have reasonable suspicion to detain him saying things were ok was there evidence that they hinted that as of the time the suspicion and a basis for a stop that's correct your honor that's not all the facts we have because there were thirty further facts in the barbershop that added you say carrying a gun in baltimore is a violation of state law it absolutely is and if he's a felon and carry a gun in appending against you and you released on bond and you have a got to know your honor you cannot section nine twenty two d of the federal code and they say you have a gun you cannot have a gun if you're under indictment correct your honor that's an actual federal crime and the state right it's a federal crime in a state that they had in their mind when they yvel it it's that crime they did not specifically cite it in the hearing by you know what it was a letter and what you're saying there was a warrant when even a warrant for that crime that's record in the trial testimony and in the suppression hearing mr bolter cross examined the police officers about the police report was it just was it in the record just left out of the appendix or would be an appendix to record two different thing it's clear from the testimony judge that heard that it was the law that was prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm in public that was mr kingsborough was arrested for when they are effected the arrest we have been in it to make it clear your honor  i have two minutes left i would just like to address the other issues on appeal to your point judge king the jury instruction is a correct statement of the law and that's really all that matters it was aimed to eliminate ones in the objection  honor i think it was a judge you shouldn't give it a general instruction that to me is enough to preserve it for this court to review i don't think it's a plain a review situation i think it is to your point judge king an abuse of discretion review we don't believe judge loss of use his discretion by  issuing the instruction which again clarifies the law which is it's for the trial judge to decide whether or not a particular police action is legal or not and it's for the jury to decide whether someone's guilty or are innocent and you know for those to pick up again on page one seventy nine of the appendix and that's when mr ball to did object to the instruction and he specifically said under the circumstances of this particular case he objected to the instruction and the government wanted that right or just you know it says not to give it that he doesn't say under these circumstances under the circumstances of this case do not get did not give this particular instruction i wish that he could have gone further and i i think the way it's articulated is under the circumstances of this case and i can point you to that i believe that's what he says sticks in my mind well he says and i think that under those circumstances of the government having made this a prime issue in this case in presented within his context i think that if you're on one seventy nine of the appendix once one hundred seventy nine you back to the bottom of the reason which you haven't mallon is a statement of probable cause that's the arrest basis we call an arrest warrant that's what they're given when they make an arrest in maryland and in the statement of probably cause that's what the are the observations for the basis and that's what he's cross examined on it's rare if never comes in as evidence so it's not evidence in a particular case it's i know it's not evidence but what but it could be helpful to the court in the context of the suppression ruling i'm not talking about being evidence at the trial ok i'm talking we're talking about when we talk about the issue of the fourth amendment issue we're talking about this suppression hearing and that ruling right right right in the hearsay rules and evidently rules aren't done but it should have been than this particular case i just very briefly i think the only issue which i have with the court is that when he's crossing the street there's no basis in our opinion it's at best a hunch that in fact he has a gun on him they never see him do anything he's not nervous he's doesn't run from the officers he answers their questions his actions may be weird and they're taken in context and in a high crime area they call it strange strange stranger use the word strange strange is fine appreciate your court appointed here and we appreciate your service to your client here well as in the district court thank you thank you very much reshape it will come down and recoun