the defendant was taser the ball field the parents are the police at that time of the goal to misuse your possessing reasonable suspicion and also for the awfulness of the orders to stop but wish when the we have to start from the period beginning of this interaction it seems to me you're suggesting that if we only can we was for him to stop don't we need to begin at the beginning of the count are considered in turn in determining whether the ultimate seizure was supported by a reasonable suspicion and so the defendant's fight can and should and must be considered as part of what the police know when the police actually question the defense position to believe is that they were actually sees like at the moments of the very st stop before the police even approach and that's it seems like if that is the case then the state with them have to fall back to the because i believe that the way it was treated below is that the abandonment was more as a result of these unlawful seizure but if you start actually ceased at that point then the hoskins case would apply because the hoskins woman fled the scene where she was stopped but because she fled and abandoned her purse behind at the scene it was considered abandoned she had no reasonable expectation of privacy was not such expression which is a lot different facts here he was told that you jacki by the police and he complied with dat can mean it's never right yes he did comply with that commands but complying with a few commands is not sufficient to constitute and actually in fact she waited seizure the valentine case the defendant was not seized even though you're parsing responses please commands and even gave his name in response to police commands in response of police authority but he was not actually seized at that  well see attenuation is not simply a matter of whether the police conduct was on lawful one of the factors is whether the misconduct was flagrant and so it could be that the police lacked a reasonable suspicion to do so but the lack of reasonable suspicion at that moment in time was not clear because here they were not simply going around trying to ascertain who this person was and see if he might be carrying but they were responding to a citizen complaint part of their policy is they're going to get out of the car they turn on him they are going to arrest him and eventually everything is parked it's going to be routinely inventory to the station house and all that's going to be admitted and it's not going to be suppressed because of attenuation that's that's usually the street i mean that's essentially but this is something that he could if the would have discarded during his flight from police by leaving it from behind that actually serve the defendant's interest he wanted to be able to get that gun and the jacket part of his person and then so he could flee without having that gun on him and so i don't see how that is it would that further the policy of allowing the defendant to discard evidence and still yet maintain his that that corroborates part of the tear and when the defense then flees in response after being told that he's there for an investigation of him having a gun and so when he flees that scene then the police have have reasonable suspicion that the moment they are ordering him to stop or anything that barfield and when they taste him and he goes down and then he's being arrested that it doesn't seem like he should be rewarded for that by and so the abandonment issue is like a hospice where the woman fled and left behind her purse i mean this is almost directly on point in terms of his leaving that jacket at the scene in public on the street and  hoskins that correct correct your honor because they had just observed her they were investigating her for prostitution but here they did not have any information indicating that he was committing a crime to see him obstructing any have run their name to see if there was a car for the individual or if the police had seen the individual before that would be different but again this was a call from an individual who did not want to disclose her name to police she did not yes yes i don't believe so but i am not sure well and individual can always terminate and unlawful terry style that would massively be a new case involving firearms and if it's an unlawful seizure of the line illinois has an individual terminat basically they indicated they were investigating a report of a guy and that he needed to follow the and additionally around her neck your honour's inevitable discovery does not apply there was no constitutionally ballot arrests here and because they have never reason to arrest him and individual naif we've from him i'm all for police seizure because the seizure here was unlawful and unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion he was able to flee because the defendant who runs away from an unlawful terry stop or seizure is not resisting or obstruction you are christ act of police officers because the police officers action here was not authorized because if they did not have reason to suspicion or away then you can't rely on his running away to say whether he's had reasonable suspicion that the moment they st think they actually seized him then that is proof for the attempted frisk and shit but here they don't actually get a hold of the defendant and when he's running away from them they can