in federal public defender on behalf of appellant michael garner michael garner was frisked after he was stopped for a traffic infraction on a motorcycle late at night in san francisco's neighborhood because the police that affected the stock discovered as a result of a computer search that mr garner had prior police contacts including a prior contact for carrying a concealed weapon this court has not spoken clearly on the issue of what role prior criminal history can play in a reasonable suspicion determination other courts have spoken on it in particular the seventh in the tenth circuits and what they have said very clearly is that a prior criminal history standing alone is not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion but that a prior criminal history in combination with other circumstances may in some cases give rise to reasonable suspicion well  were existing in this case and what happened after the stop was sufficient in combination with the fact of the criminal history to give rise to reasonable suspicion is there a slight difference here between a reasonable suspicion of a commission in the former and this is really the latter scienter stranded i mean what they what the police have a reasonable suspicion of is that he may have been carrying a gun and it turned out all right and so they weren't trying to from both the seventh in the tenth circuits are directly a positive year on in particular i would call the court's attention to the walton case which was cited by the government in the seventh circuit the issue there was whether there was a sufficient reason to conduct a straightforward traffic stop for a speeding violation the officer went back to the squad car he ran a computer check found some information which gave him pause and then had a further conversation with the defendant about whether he was a the officers that their safety was in danger at this particular point in time all related to the circumstances that existed that evening it was late at night it was a high crime neighborhood we don't dispute that there was a motorcycle not a car you off the defendant was wearing a jacket which would have been able to conceal as most jackets can a weapon there was nothing in it and they thought he had reason to think you stealth a motorcycle well your honor that the i would that seems critical for me i don't believe that that was actually part of the basis that was before the district court i don't think that the record at this point supports the view that the district court believed that these officers were under the allegation and if that's the case your honor i would submit that what one would have expected the officers to do would have been to conduct that frisk at the time that they initially stopped the defendant instead they did not do that they took his license from him they took it to the squad car and they did a computer review and it was only when that review revealed the fact of a prior conviction but the officer then came back to mr gardner agree that i mean you know agree that the standard court has relied upon in the past to establish that someone is potentially armed and dangerous there was no nervous behavior on the part of mr garner there were not a base of answers to the questions that were put to him by the officers offense of which he was suspected the kind that would tend to indicate that he might be in possession of a weapon i would submit that this is not that kind of case even if the court takes the position that they had a basis for believing that he was still in the motorcycle the types of cases essentially held that is essentially what he had he told us and what we were protesting in the district court and what we protest now is that the test is whether there was a reasonable suspicion to believe that he was currently dangerous to the officers at that point in time and you was not dangerous at the point where they initially stopped him if their suspicions about potential vehicle theft or or motorcycle theft were not sufficient the addition of this extra fact whether it's considered frosting or or a new fact  possession for selling drugs which may be with lead wanted to believe that there could be a weapon involved here it was hostile most relevant charge that an officer could be confronted with carrying a concealed weapon the very thing that a reasonable person in his shoes would be concerned about at that time this case is not like stand of all which the appellant heavily relies on there it was eight in the morning daylight in a major highway not a high crime area the court now this was a high crime area late at night he's wearing a jacket capable of concealing a weapon he standing next to the officer as opposed to being in a car which doesn't make the officer feel more vulnerable he's just been stopped for traffic violation jacket and i'm wondering just how significant that is let me know not all motorcycle riders almost were large leather jackets and that uniform it is your honor and i think that was the only fact we were presented with that the person on a jacket that doesn't give memories to think he is doing at th that should be considered a new now assessed and we need to trust their instincts i think at these critical points when they are making decisions that basically could affect their life the third the third and last point is just that the district court did properly applied the appropriate standard which was to tally the circumstances and that the court properly rejected the divide and conquer approach of trying to look at each factor independently and either see if that alone is enough to provide sufficient basis or according to such an insignificant amount of weight that what you're really doing is what would happen in the r r this new case where they're just looking at a couple of the factors as opposed to all of the factors here the officer was taking into account all of these factors and rendering a decision that indeed considered that as one of the factors in making this decision and it's in the record that's not been a part of the came they just stopped him and he had his own license and he is the motorcycle i think in as circumstances when you combine that with other factors the late at night high crime area and the jacket people concealing a weapon and then learning this important fact that he was carrying a concealed weapon i would argue that were presented to kirschner of the person at the time which was new not just that he was driving a motorcycle improperly but that he was again in a high crime area late at night he got off the motorcycle with standing next to him was wearing a had had at least five prior contact with police for involving some type of weapons and wanted to convey that information as quickly as possible to his partner who is now seeing standing outside late at night talking to this person prior contacts with law enforcement if that is a danger potential in the sense of an officer safety alert we don't know that that was never developed below moreover if an officer safety alert or a danger potential designation is simply a proxy for prior criminal history then i don't think that it conveys any additional information to an officer and the fact that it is danger potential or officer safety alert should not be something that the court weighs significantly in its reasonable suspicion determination but that here the we are in