card three officers surrounded him taking him to an enclosed area with metro card a fee i mean if i waive card is it and i'm not a student have i waved my student metro card didn't know that he was a student however your honor all they had was a hunch that he looked ugly well but they did have a reasonable suspicion come on a twenty four year old looking person using a student card i s that your argument or is your argument about when they when they stopped them what they did and then it's both your honor so it didn't metrocard can be valid up to people who are twenty two years old the officers here pointed to no somebody is not is watching that's not what they say around or they say the only suspicious thing with swiping the metro card they say he looked around they definitely don't say they found that suspicious they say the opposite and they pointed to and they didn't say importantly anything objective about what about this person made him look a little older than a typical student let's get to the point that is the principal argument about whether under circumstances they had the right to check for the gun program in the past and whether if they didn't whether this was  once mr silver's had been stopped by three officers handcuffed and the backpack was removed the officers specifically testified they had the one officer that offer testimony on the point that they had he had no reason to think mr stover's a dangerous no concern they also had no reason to think there was any evidence of a backpack and the supreme court has counseled that the purpose of the search the scope of the search must be limited to a legitimate purpose there's no legitimate purpose here and the backpack is also outside of the area that would be part of a legitimate copy of the search can i believe that is an alternative ground here which is not which is a because he was a transit recidivist he was going to be arrested if you can be arrested he's going to the station his room the station house facts as far as what his status were a little limited as to its class or did not allow counsel to explore the transit recidivist question but even if you he was a transit recidivist once it's taken to the precinct the nd officer testifies that generally people are given desk appearance to appearance ticket in this instance and allowed to return home rather than proceed with the formal arrest process the government didn't introduce any facts about any inventory process that might apply in that circumstance it is not our burden it is the government's burden to show inevitability which will there you're saying this is like with greece's case that we should send it back to see if there to have the government come in whether there is a practice of looking into backpacks or things going into dorie because if there were such a practice and the hearing that is whether there were the defense counsel challenge whether there were n y p d inventory procedures defense counsel has no burden to ask the officers about the procedures the burden is  and i apologize perhaps i can get back to you under but all with respect to that question but here we have a situation where the government did present what they believe to be sufficient i assume it's not like they totally forgot about the issue or it wasn't pointed out to them that the inevitability of the search or the inventory would be an issue with respect to the suppression hearing moving back in in the chronology where with the backpack when he was being my understanding and put sort of away from him it was taking off so he could not reach into it that's why the officer took it off and so he could not access it the officer also said it was near his right leg there's no record about the exact distance between the backpack and mr sobered but here there's also the officers had no reason to think that mr sober to prevent presented any type of danger at all and that is different than all of the and dangerous so there's no question about that part of the purpose of the search and then the court looks to is the place where the person place where to search post and that a person could have actually gotten to it here there's no indication that it i good morning your honor the court aaron read for the government representing the government at the suppression hearing and a trial in this case beginning with the start incident arrests question your honor judge glasser the correct to find that the gun was recovered in this case search been done it would not have been a ruse for the purpose of investigation this is very similar to this court ruling and which held that not every detail of a search for cesar has to be put in the record  guide and it was appropriate for the court to take that into account given that was put into evidence one year before and they can focus in two thousand and sixteen in addition to the consistent testimony of these two officers about the policy was sufficient under lopez and i just want to know that lopez goes through all the things that are required in order to find that there's a standard policy it doesn't the policy doesn't have writing as i mentioned but it also doesn't have to be comprehensive it not and that was reasonable under the circumstances here and that's why different from the cases where both searches and two arrests have been allowed and not allowed but danger is taken into account the cases that the government mentions  about where the scope or the purpose of the search is that go that are about searches of the person not about searches of property that are removed from the person an arizona began to make clear and that the must be related to the purpose with respect to the double discovery and inventory in recess there was no testimony about any sort of policy and procedure with respect to the closed container here the government put in what they thought was sufficient that the officer said there was a protocol and there was a procedure so while th aside for the desk appearance ticket this isn't it up and it's not like lopez where there was expensive testimony about what the procedures were the issue was down in the nitty gritty of did this procedure actually followed th