wardlow this case can be distinguished more low on three grounds first mr wardlow engaged in headlong flight in response to seeing the police he ran the police saw him run and he didn't stop running until the police cornered him in an alley in contrast mr senegal never engaged in this type of have long flight run we have to accept that he ran and we do have to accept that and that's what the government focuses on but as the government points out the court has to focus on the t dance without running and also because he looked like he had been sweating a little bit there seems to be some confusion the record as to how much distance he covered in the twenty second there  yards and there's a suggestion was that it was two to three hundred yards i think to make a difference here doesn't that i think when i grew there honor that there is some confusion there and i don't know whether i'll be able to strike much light on the confusion my best understanding of the record is ok but again that's only a very short period of time and i think that in looking telling the circumstances and judging whether or not mr determine whether mr sent a long gauge and have long flight the court has to look at what happened before what happened after under warlow the headlong flight is only significant to the extensive extent it is in response to seeing a police officer here we don't even have on like warlow a clear indication that stand of all saw the police cruiser coming down the street but we accept the inference that the district court room which was that mr stand of all did see the police cruiser and that's why he turned into the into the parking lot he turned and walked into the parking lot and even if we assume that at some point after that mr cent of all ran for a brief period the fact that his first response to the police cruiser was go to run back to walk away makes this case much like the supreme this court's recent decision in moreno which i mentioned in my rule twenty jail letter with a court of knowledge that walking away from the police even in a high crime area is not the type of headlong what's how old are you and can i see some identification and so and i think the government acknowledges that the issue in this case is everything that happened after that point whether he had a right to ask further questions in the thing and further because the initial reason for the stop for the curfew by relation had to be limited to what the least intrusive means to satisfy him that there was no such violation but going back to putting in the brief period of the brief less than twenty seconds ran through the parking lot in context not only was mr stand of all first reaction to walking to the parking lot but by the time the officer once again comes around and gets mr santa on si again he's walking again the officer emitted that he never saw him running and what happens is the officer pulls out the twenty feet behind mr stand of all he's built twenty feet away he doesn't try to run what are the other circumstances that were present he's he's able to stop them yes and so now what is the officer factoring in when he gets them probably your honor i submit that the only the officer the only information that officer had to attempt to justify going further to ask the question of operation asked what he was on probation for to ask what were you running right now all of the only things he had to go to that  officers we're going into with they identified clearly as a heavy narcotics trafficking area they were going in as a raiding party and officers and for patrol cars because they expect to find a lot of people there they expect to find drug dealers drug customers and thought he looked under eighteen and that's the reason for the initial stop but there is not the officer was never to are being able to articulate a specific criminal activity that he really thought that this person was engaging and he just had good morning your honor has made please the core doug mccormack for the government there were three significant significant events during the encounter between officer size and defendant was a stand of all leading up to the discovery of the loaded thirty eight caliber pistol officer sties additional questioning of the defendant after the defendant told him his age i want to make clear to the court that the question is not whether the suspicious factors that the government has identified would have justify the terry stop in the first place was justified by the reasonable suspicion of the curfew violation question is whether officer sties is additional questions were justified by particularized objective factors in the government's admits that the answer to that question is yes stylised notice that the defendant was slightly pale and sweating based on that observation and officer sties is observation of the distance covered by the defendant and the amount of time in which it covered that distance officer at that point your honor the defendant had basically turned the corner and headed up the street he had i think by his account by his thinking gotten out of sight of the officer court looks at the diagram of the street corner at page sixty six of the excerpts of record he was around the corner he was up the street he no i think he thought the defendant thought at that point he was out of sight returning to the factors officer sties knew that this was a high crime area an area of heavy narcotics activity officer started this testimony on that point was limited he particularly described the street harvard boulevard  the area of the intersection mcfadden boulevard and it was also a very early hours three forty am an hour a very few legitimate activities in that neighborhood under the took how do the circumstances test this court must under terry and our views and those facts were significant were enough to justify the officers additional questioning edition of questioning revealed that this was a defendant that that mr stand of all was on probation for in a product sense that he had terms of search itself it is not your honor but when it is added to the other circumstances in this case the government admits that it is reasonable suspicion to justify a pat down search for the defendant government argues that the pat down searches testified both of the protective for us and  probationary search of the defendant who had terms of search and seizure at that point now the officer has learned as a defendant who has a prior narcotics offense it is still three forty in the morning it's still a high crime area and this is the defendant identification and the officer sties sees the address from the defendant's identification is from a neighborhood that the officer knows is a game neighborhood at that point the officer passed the defendant down and locates the thirty eight caliber pistol in his waistband officer testified that he did it as a protective breast and as a search under the terms of the defendant's probation i'd like to address the defendant's attacker the defendant's argument based on the word last it is true that the flight here was not of the same type of headlong flight that was present  wardlaw made clear that a vase his conduct is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion evasion as evasion blatant evasion isn't any less of suspicious then suddenly evasion equally direction of the neighborhood of his home not clear to my recollection i do believe the defendant live north of mcfadden i don't remember whether he lived east or west of harbor i don't remember the directions that direction but yes i think he was headed in the direction of i mean address of course recent decision and marino marino involved an entirely different level of intrusiveness the question there was whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention that involved handcuffing the plaintiff and putting him in the back seat of a patrol car as this court knows little level of the officers intrusiveness is one factor in the reasonableness analysis a less intrusive action requires less showing of reasonable suspicion in moreno the court said we waiting intrusiveness of the search and seizure taking into account the context in which they  when the officer first saw the defendant he was walking eastbound on mcfadden's as as the officer and the and the defendant passed each other on mcfadden the defendant changed direction to go north through the commercial development at that point the officer turned around and turned into the commercial development in an attempt to make contact with the defendant couldn't locate him pulled all the way through the commercial development unable to locate him at that point got to harbor boulevard looked to his left and saw the defendant a hundred yards north on harbor boulevard that point this officer turned on the harbor boulevard the opposite direction because that's what traffic required in the median required made a u turn turned around and stopped the defendant even further harbor boulevard when he stopped the defendant his first question was your age the defendant said he was nineteen the second question was are you on probation parole and it's the government's argument that question was justified by the our high crime area and a very significant fact that the officer had concluded at that point based on the fact that the defendant was pale and sweat and the distance covered and the amount of time that the defendant had tried to evade and so he asked the question are you on probation and parole bennett said i'm on probation for what i'm on probation for narcotics offense do you have terms with officers to ask someone who they are suspicious of are you on probation or parole and the reason for that is what because if they are on probation then they've got free reign to to search them they would have three year reign to search them time or place but you don't have the language that we do not because that language was not known to officer stock as at the time of the encounter but he's the orange county guy officer stice the santa guy city of santa ana that's orange county officer stars have reasonable suspicion at the time of the pass down search getting back to judge by the question which was what were the factors that justified the question about probation or parole the government's argument  and shoot him at that point but what what if the i mean officer safety suggests there had that he was going to have to engage in some kind of her to contact with them and therefore for the officers protection want to ensure that the that it wasn't going to turn out badly in the course of talking reasons one just has a very short condensed period of time this entire encounter from the first question how old are you to the pat down search took no more than about thirty seconds the questions were how old are you are you on point looked at the defendant identification card and saw the defendant's address and also confirm the defendant's age the officer at that point may have done any number of different things he may have gone back to his patrol car and run the defendant through the computer for any  about being a vases those facts amount telling the officer hey i've got a guy here that i need to have my eye on and i think it's difficult to tell that patrol officer that it's unreasonable for him to conduct a limited pat down search secure his safety during the remainder of the encounter and just while the encounter terminates and for that use a computer in the r's the pat down search results of that in the discovery of the thirty eight caliber pistol in the defense way spent at that point the defendant was placed under arrest in the defendant was placed on patrol car so the circle circumstances of the encounter changed during the pat not that specific about what he was going to do next he simply testified you making this i'm making it up your honor i'm telling you the officers reasons for just by the feds why wasn't the encounter over i don't think it was in the officers mind that the an encounter was over at that point he had a narcotic defender who was on probation he was going to check this guy out he did not testify to that to reason suspicion and they say the devil's in the details of what type of asian under what circumstances and so i submit that the type of even hear of the circumstances here are much different from those in war law and given the incidentally is going to learn where that where the worst and of all left yes you can ask many questions after that i don't think so and can ask about probation you know your own why not because at that point he has no reasonable suspicion he satisfies himself that mr sand of all is an adult and not violation and not in violation of the curfew ordinance there is no reason suspicion to keep him any further to ask him any question nothing and so i would submit that even asking the question are you on probation is not justified at that point court noted as in both the crawford decision and the merino decision the language varies and even within california from county to county and certainly over time so it is significant i don't think they can just say that in california somebody has a probation condition we