please the court jennifer mcmanus on behalf of the united states i reserve five minutes for rebuttal the officers in this case reasonably suspected that the defendant and his companion might be associated with the ongoing drug activity occurring at six hundred and thirty seven dollars florence that reasonable suspicion justified the initial stop in detention further the precautionary measures that the officers took given the circumstances were reasonable and within the permissible scope of a terry investigative detention for these reasons we asked this court to reverse the decision of the district court suppressing the drug evidence taken from the defendant's person in the statement that he made st there was reasonable suspicion to stop in attain the defendant there were at least five factors that contributed to the officers reasonable suspicion in this case  st of course the officers had probable cause to believe that there was ongoing drug and drug trafficking activity occurring at the target search at the target house sixty seven  it is often less clear than in this case that there is criminal activity afoot in the context of a terry reasonable suspicion based stop here the officers had probable cause to believe that there was drug trafficking earth might be present in fact would likely be present at the house because they had just seen him conduct a drug sale on the sidewalk in front of six hundred and thirty seven dollars florence an hour before so as know it wasn't just generalize it wasn't just that they had probable cause to believe that this was a drug house they actually had specific information that the defendant had sold drugs right in front of the house stepping off of the porch onto the sidewalk one hour before they knew that he this that the defendant had outstanding warrants and they knew that he might be armed and dangerous as as perhaps others might be at the house rd as the officers approached they saw the defendant his companion near a car that was backed into the driveway between six hundred and thirty five and said they didn't know they didn't know who were some of them didn't know that that was the difference is that correct that is absolutely correct that none of the f neither of the officers there were two principal officers to the five  testified suppression hearing who approached from the front and neither of them immediately recognized that this was the defendant but significantly in our view they knew that it might be the defendant they knew that he had recently sold drugs right there in front of the house and they knew that this person might be the defendant so as they approach and get out of their vehicle their police vehicle this car that was backed into the driveway suddenly a dramatically fled ramming into one of the plea into their police vehicle and driving down the sidewalk to make its escape this added to the officers reasonable suspicion that the defendant and his companion might be involved in the drug activity that was occurring there even the fact that they were potentially interacting with this car that was parked at a known drug itself some additional degree of suspicion but then nearly simultaneously with the police officers exit from their vehicle this car then suddenly fled the scene that added to their reasonable suspicion that the defendant was possibly engaged in criminal activity for us there is the defendant's efforts to leave the scene without interacting with the officers you know  district court factual finding on that issue was clearly erroneous the district court found that he was not running or jogging but you're briefing pretty consistently says that he was running or jogging away do you challenge  the decision of the district court as a factual hiding no we don't that well we actually we do think our position is that the record supports that the defendant  in particular was walking as i think we put it in our brief with some dispatch that he was not he was trying to get away from the scene but we do not argue in which we didn't intend to argue that he was in a on sprint that he was running but the testimony from the officers was pretty consistent that he they perceived him at least reasonably and objectively perceived him to be moving with some dispatch now officer who is the one who initially along with officer sherman our ordered them to stop us characterized him as walking and you know we don't think that although you know we quibble in certain respects with the way that the district court expressed certain certain of its factual findings we do not think that the court needs to find that the district court committed clear error in anything factual findings in order to reverse its decision whether the whether th there was reasonable suspicion is of course a legal conclusion and even based on the facts that the district court found them we believe that the officers had reasonable suspicion to step in to taint the defendant and it lessens the likelihood that somebody is being innocently somebody who is in gay is out for an evening stroll so that the overall setting the fact that a search warrant is being conducted that there's this car that's backed into the driveway the sunday flees that is it is that important to determine or to have the district court determine whether all of this is physically on the is most important whether it's the property technically whether they were technically in the property at six hundred and thirty five or technically on the property of sixty seven what is important is whether the officers who arrived objective lee reasonably perceive them to be associated with the target house and we submit that the record absolutely does support that view that they did that number when they did perceive these two individuals to be on the property on the premises to be searched and that lee reasonable and separately from the warrant to search the house and the yard right isn't that you're not relying on the ability to stop that they were in the yard correct yes so you have to make that you have to make the showing that it was reasonable to stop someone walking away when there is law that someone can hurry away and that that alone is not sufficient was there anything in the evidence about about the defendant particularly that made him suspicious other than and we understand where you are as we understand that there was earlier drug activity shots fired the whole bit but what about him individually choosing to walk away made him suspicious number one there's the fact that he did not immediately comply with the order order of the officers to stop his companion did he only staff when he rounded the corner in that testimony from the officers who approached across the field was that it was at least their perception that their reason he actually did stop was that they he s additional officers coming across that field so there is that invasive behavior at there is also the possibility that he was interacting with this car that you know suddenly into magically fled now we don't know we don't know for sure  whether he was interacting with that car directly or not but he was positioned close to that car and we submit that that is enough for the officers given you know the overall setting the fact that they had just witnessed a drug deal and almost the exact spot on which the defendant was standing an hour earlier than all of that gave the officers reasonable suspicion to investigate further to in order to compact to confirm or dispel their suspicion that they were associated with the car and or the house that there were four components to the district court's order the st was that battels seizure of mr mcilrath was covered was not covered by the search warrant under the bailey and summer rule because he was not in the immediate vicinity of six hundred and thirty seven dollars florence as that immediate vicinity rule is defined in belize and summers the government is not appealing that aspect of the district court decision the nd aspect of judge course decision is that he found that to tell and cake seized mcilrath it was not consensual and it required reasonable suspicion which judge quests found the police did not have and that it exceeded the bounds of a terry stop and in any event because there was no reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous  the rd and th components of the district court opinion deal with stuff that happened after the fact whether consent to search was consensual joshua's found that it wasn't and whether inevitable discovery saved all this anyway and judge quiz found  didn't but those aren't appealed either so the only issue we have on appeal here is whether there was a reasonable suspicion to stop mcilrath and that the government has chosen only to address this issue is puzzling to me because when you read the transcripts of the evidence or hearing and you look the transcript of what the evidentiary hearing i'm sorry your honor and and if you take have taken the time to look at the videos of the interaction between the police and mr mcgowan raff it could not be more clear that the only reason he was detained was because the police thought he was covered by the search warrant the officers felt that the search warrant author their eyes them not only to detain individuals on the property but anybody who was coming from it or who we had reason to believe was associated with the property and that from cake's investigator case testimony at page id two hundred and twenty one would tell discusses this at was not not because there was an existing search more but because of the totality of the circumstances at the time gave them reasonable suspicion to be able to stop yes and i hear her saying th that people that are two feet over the property of a known drug house who were there had been sales in the very immediate past who are associated apparently with somebody who just crashed into the police car that that's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity i think that can be the problem here is that was not part of the calculus for any of these officer that is is is the subjectiveness important that is if you have in fact have reasonable suspicion but you're also acting on another theory does that o reasonable suspicion what we've what we have here with the reasonable suspicion is a reconstruction of what could have formed the basis for reasonable suspicion by the officers at the time to stop it wasn't what the police officers that relied on asking the question in the context of a terry stop does it have to be subjectively the reason to take a sort of an example is suppose you have a situation that is dripping with reasonable suspicion and the police have a warrant for john jones and they mistakenly see somebody and believe he's john jones ok so that's the reason they stopped him but without the warrant there's no rules of reasonable suspicion do they lose because of the subjective reason they stopped him isn't that kind of like for random you know the case that says that if you really have cause to stop somebody you get to stop them you know that you know that's the police court case ok right yes i think i think what you're talking about with ran is really a pretext in other words the the motivation behind stopping somebody is different than the official objective legal justification but that isn't that even better for the cops that in war ran even if it is a pretext the cops win because he really did commit the offense here if you really do have reasonable suspicion why does it matter that you think you're stopping him for a separate reason  things on that your honor st of all there is reasonable suspicion wasn't a pretext and it wasn't a motivation to prove the motivation and the justification here by the police is explicitly were the existence of the search warrant officers mosse reasonably suspect a person is committing or has committed a crime and to frisk them officers must reasonably believe they're armed and dangerous so it's from the perspective of the officer what they know at the time and what they're acting on and not what is reconstructed on a post hoc basis by the government so that i think that i don't know that even this reasonable suspicion argument even and i would like to obviously kind of go through why i don't think there was a recent polls version anyway but i don't know that it saves the suppression it saves evidence from being suppressed because that's not what the police relied on here and the government hasn't cited any cases and i don't i'm not aware of any where this sort of post hoc reconstruction of what happened could have provided reasonable suspicion is just not that the officers acted on it so kind of moving and less anybody has any other parsons about that just sort of moving on to if you accept that this  investigatory stops normally do not involve weapons being drawn ordering suspects to the ground or using handcuffs i might also add they don't normally involve one thousand dollars police officers  tank in a couple of marked cars and unmarked cars and canine these investigatory stop and frisks art for weapons are allowed only when there are particular facts from which  that he was armed and dangerous we hear a lot of this while it might be and it could be and possibly be and he was nearby and it was close enough and that all sort of smacks of the ambiguity that we cannot rely on for reasonable suspicion or on your opposing counsel argues that the reason that the issue was in fact what occurred on the site understand your argument i have some questions about how important the subjective motivations of the officers comply if it were the search warrant then the dividing line between the two lots might make a difference if it is a reasonable suspicion argument and the dividing line in which this car was parked is right on the border of the two when you look at the pictures the visual pictures from the top you're not even sure if it's not a shared driveway so if they have say it and then they have the whole panoply is what the argument is or tell me why we could not consider everything the one hour ago drug stop the calling and for weapons at the home shots fired at night the proximity of the individual to the car that then p dissuade a neighborhood this it was nine hundred and thirty at night it was not two o'clock in the morning this was a high density place where where people live and snowing colder than the banker's heart out the night and it usually is in michigan and february and if the world stabbed him because it was cold and it was dark nobody would get anything done not everybody works nine to five people have to go to the grocery store people have to walk to see family and friends mr met macao rath was dressed appropriately for the weather he was in a heavy coat he had a hood up dress cold snowy weather to be out at night no i don't think so i think there are some cases about mass in hats and that type of thing but the point is he wasn't doing anything suspicious and i think one are opposing counsel suggests that the most suspicious thing was that they pull into execute warrant and the car at which they are near which they are stand either on the on the property or on the line of the property pulls out hits the police officers car and then runs drive down the sidewalk two things about that your honor the st is that no one was sure whether these two men one of which in turn turned out to be mikko rath was talking to anybody in the magnum or if they were just walking by nobody was sure about that word but be sure you know but talking to someone without more doesn't indicate a crime is happening or is about to happen and the court has said that in the boat champ opinion but i think the nd point is that reasonable suspicion cannot be based on events that occur after that if and then is seized and in this case they were yelling at him and his the person that was with him to get on the ground face down on your stomach where the police before any of this ever happened or the car ever move yes and i would point the i would point the the court to the prosecution's brief page eight t reply brief where they acknowledge the cars fly was not a but for cause of the demands to get down this all happened it happened after and you can see it on the video with the video it looks like it's all going  something of a melee use or described it that way to what extent do we require in determining whether there's reasonable suspicion that the police have to just segment things so that we look at these two seconds and these two seconds and these two seconds or do we look at the whole picture in order to figure out whether a reasonable officer d under those circumstances would have thought that this guy was very likely up to no good but the melee was created by the police and then before they arrived all we have is two guys walking down the street that aren't doing anything suspicious they don't know it's an hour or perhaps standing by a car parked very close to a known drug house maybe but in the parking lot of bridge in the driveway of the neighbor's house so there are you know there are all these facts is sort of looking back on it as a matter of so we can sort of move backwards and say well obviously it was it was suspicious that he was by this has been nobody knew that  time they didn't know anything about macao rather than he was a black male born in one thousand nine hundred and three they didn't make any attempt to say well he was wearing this an hour earlier or he's this builder that builder or anything like that and in fact prior notice if you if you watch the whole video i mean they they still have to a lot of people there was a woman sitting out in front of a car or seeing a car in front of a house that they pulled out at gunpoint there wasn't reasonable suspicion for any of these people it's just what they were doing when they when they went to go execute this warrant because they thought that they could and they can't but there wasn't that the woman was on the problem i mean she's not a defendant here but she was in parked in a  on the sure in in front of house but she wasn't getting in or out or anything like that in fact i think they said that they thought she had just pulled up so i met zero take a moment to summarize due weight should be given to the inferences from the facts from the district judge just based on the typical things of viewing witness credibility but also sort of on local custom and that you should view the inferences in the light most likely to support the district court opinion which i'm not usually able to say but i am here and i thank you for your time the supreme court in this court have repeatedly recognized that the calculus of reasonableness musson body allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make a split nd judgments in circumstances you're opposing counsel raises a concern that where police officers have to act based on what a defendant has done to create a situation may be one thing but what we have here is a militarized police force showing up in a neighborhood and catching in its large number of people and vehicles and weapons a number of citizens that were there so the question becomes do we have the same tolerance for the problems in the needs of the police officers in an emergency situation when it is in fact created by the force that they bring to that neighborhood and i think the answer is yes i know the district court also made comments about you know the one thousand police officers w because there had been you know multiple reports of shots fired at that residence there had been confidential informants who had seen weapons there is recently as two nights before there was a shots fired report officers have been dispatch to this house these officers were charged they were pleaded with by neighbors in this community to come in ink and address this problem drug house in their neighborhood during the previous briefing officers were told all about this and they were also told they're also discussed what they might encounter at the scene specifically that there might be children present and that the person who just sold drugs might well be there they were told to be prepared for potentially armed and dangerous situation so yes there was a swat vehicle involved and there was a heavy police presence presence but that is to ensure the safety of everybody in the neighborhood not to create added  danger but to prevent it so they had multiple nation of how many people they expected to be in the house they not specifically but they had been told by neighbors that the woman who lived there was letting drug dealers use her house to facilitate their sales so i think they expected in as it turned out there was four adult males in the house along with a woman and her children they expected that there might be multiple people in the house or on the premises so your position is that it's based on the reasonable suspicion growing from the totality of the circumstances and you don't rely on the warrant or had  well that's correct we're proceeding at a reasonable suspicion argument the fact that there was a search warrant is not irrelevant however to the reasonable suspicion calculus the fact that they were there knowing that you know that they had probable cause to believe that there was drug intended to detain people who they perceived to be on the property in executing the search warrant and that is in the record and clearly that was you know their thinking but you know officers can have multiple  motivations and what this court has said in the supreme court i believe that is that we the court does not consider the subjective motivations of police officers in conducting th amendment in elsa's the question is whether based on the facts and circumstances was an objective lea reasonable for the officers to take the actions that they taught you use the phrase they're conducting th amendment analysis are you taking that soley from from  cases or are there cases that also use it in the terry context i think that i think that there are cases in the terry context that talk about how the question is whether it  is whether it was objective lee reasonable and that's why you don't look at what the officers were actually thinking but what a reasonable officer at the scene would believe and if the facts and circumstances indicate that a reasonable police officer would think that there was reasonable suspicion then that is enough to sustain the terry stop and of course in this case i guess if if the person who appeared to be a homeowner next door was wreaking his law twenty feet off the property line they probably wouldn't have relied on the search warrant to stop him that the facts and circumstances would be different than a reasonable outcome of the reasonable suspicion analysis may well be different in that circumstance  take a moment to conclude please based on the totality of the circumstances the officers in this case acted reasonably in stopping in detaining the defendant and his companion and they took  reasonable precaution airy many measures to secure and stabilize the scene they acted within the th the scope of the th amendment and the district court's decision should be reversed thank you thank you thank you both we seeing this cobb that you are from the c