the district court's word or m p three which isn't on page one ninety five of the excerpt of record judge one mill which i think is the critical finding of fact in this case noted that the question by officer to mr jensen occurred after number one they had identified joe perry the police and number two after joe perry said already been taken into custody know it was not there was never a specific time found by the district where it was made clear in the district court's findings that one followed after the other in other words well i think it was it's not completely clear from the testimony when those findings although i would just of course point out the government has the burden of the stablish and the validity of the stop but i would note that they had time to needles so i think the timing well i'm not here to say that it was twenty minutes i think the courting reasonably conclude that it was a period of minutes before officer perhaps he actually asked the question to m well they're both on the same floor there was never any up or down you know i think what may be confusing the court is the gentleman came out of the room walked down the hallway and there were three police officers  but i don't think it necessarily allowed the police to conclude an illegal connection i would also note that wait a minute probable cause or stop offering a reasonable if i agree but i would also  at that point your honor i think it was not reasonable for them to continue to to use that level of restraint now has they i'm not saying the police have to just stay on your way with respect to mr jensen but i think i think that they could have and should have the games the process of releasing him letting them stand that perhaps asking the question do you have anything under those circumstances well you've still got them on his back so you see the level of restraint if you look at the record police from governing the analysis by saying i had probable cause for i had reasonable suspicion i agree with but i think that the district court had to completely ignore what officer perhaps his intent was and here's why district court that i think that the the statement can be considered because it shows a lack of concern for safety at that point by the police in the quote still allow the police officers an opinion about whether there's a real safety concern to be considered was still requires that it's reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous and this time mr jenson's failure to reach for anything to do anything other than comply with the police commands i think passenger in ronnie king's cross there were two passengers mr allen and one other and of course when the police approached the car they did with guns drawn mr allen was made to get out of the car he he complied with the cases on the grounds that there was no evidence and there are cases of any safety concerns for the police that would justify the level of restraint used here they they pointed out and the courts said that mr allen is not responsible for what rodney king did that's true but nevertheless the police were responding to the situation as the court said and their treatment of mr allen cannot be analyzed in a vacuum and they pointed out the fact that the high crime area was a car chase it was that night and mr canning the courts that was not compliant mr allen was compliant but it was still relevant to the court that mr cannon was not compliant for all of these reasons the court said that the the actions that the police officers took with regard to mr allen were reasonable under the circumstances due to the the various concerns and safety concerns and so forth the allen court cited and relied on an earlier ninth circuit case named barry hill and that one is one where the police had a warrant for mr berry hill  and they found him driving in a car so they per the car over and mr benny hill and his wife or in the car where they approached the car with guns drawn then make mr barry hill get out they arrest him immediately but they have guns drawn was bank hill as well and the police do kind of a terry had and of her including up her purse because she had her purse and her hands and they end up finding no weapons but they did find some evidence which incriminate know you're gonna know i'm not urging that brought up a rule what i'm saying is that in these cases they found that specific circumstances were such were a companion when a companions in a car when they're in the house that's something that i believe it was the very hill case discussed then present and those kind of context indicate some kind of an association between the two people and if you have a situation were were danger is presented or there's there's a chance of danger then  the principles of temporary don't just go in isolation to the person who the police are initially focused on they also extend to the person who was with that person and i think under the circumstances of this case here you don't have any of the number of factors that you would end in a pretext case this is not a traffic stop here where the the officers had no motive to go looking for evidence because they weren't investigating anything they were simply trying to rest mr perez because there were runs out on him they were in a very dangerous situation they're in a very public situation in a hotel room it's early in the morning they've got all these other doors that open to the highway they don't know when some innocent unsuspecting member of the public may back out into the hard way the police officers have no cover they cannot post themselves at both ends of the hallway because of the crossfire issues and they are  companioned your honor and it turns on the specific circumstances of each case you know some of the search warrant cases for example where they're going to have a warrant to search particular house and there's people in the house and the courts say that the officers  detain these people right so to maintain the status quo going to and for safety reasons here they clearly had safety concerns and i would submit that the record if you if you read the transcript yes your honor and he was reported to be armed and dangerous well be still good law the form case also cited by my adversary is distinguishable for two reasons first in that case the purpose of the stop was not yet over the police and not arrested the people in question for contacting defendant one secondly no one in that case acted suspiciously he had a bag twice he was told to stop and he walked away both times thereby giving reasonable suspicion that he could have been armed at that point mr j nothing of the sort and the alan case your honor the defendant there was present during the commission of a crime by ronnie kang he was in a car or running king rocketed through the streets of los angeles at speeds well over one hundred miles an hour whereas mr jensen was never present at any time where the police observed mr paris committing any kind of criminal activity and i would just end by saying that at the time that mr jensen was asked the critical question five police officers were present the level of restraint had been increased on him not decreased despite having no particular a suspicion against him and for that reason we believe that at that point he was under arrest without probable cause thank you for allowing this case to be argued