evidence the testimony at the suppression hearing stablished clearly that officer present his partner did not engage in any sort of chase that would have justified that would have served as an additional factor justifying a reasonable suspicion that mr smith was armed and dangerous such that his furtive movements of would have been would have justified search  court's conclusion is did over and here basically what officer pres testified was that he saw mr smith run a stop sign a routine traffic stop situation he and his partner followed they curb mr smith about two blocks after word mr smith stopped immediately and at that point with their spotlight on mr smith's car they approached they saw mr smith making a gesture back judge said there was a chase absolutely your honor and to the extent there was any ambiguity in the testimony and direct that i'm cross examination defense counsel elicited testimony from the officer that essentially that when you curb the vehicle he pulled over immediately is that fair to say yeah there goes the chase there was no chase the trial court was manifestly ron in determining that there was a chase so the question becomes does he  y furtive movement give the officers justification pull him out of the car and search for a weapon is there reasonable suspicion that he's armed and dangerous and has access to a weapon and the case  manifestly shows that it is not in the cases in which there were as any kind of justification for search mission versus lying people versus collier even flores which states i think there were additional factors beforehand that he gave the officers a reason to believe that these people might be dangerous in law and it was a large hunting knife in plain view in collier when the officers approached the vehicle they saw the bullet ever seen in plain view leading them to reasonably believe that there was a dime in for us it's kind of complicated but it boils down to the fact that they saw two power stereos that had apparently been ripped out of out of cars in the back seat they approached and the defended lied about what he had been doing and also engaged in furtive movements apparently to hide a screwdriver  here the officers walked up mr smith had been going for the pocket on the back of the seat we don't dispute that the officers didn't see anything in his hands that this gun that was founded in see if they didn't even see this bag that it was found and they didn't see any bullets he was entirely cooperative and they come up in a bag when they retrieved it out of that out yes your honor testimony was that it was in a purple yes they didn't see that all this i was the hand there and just like in state versus johnson the wisconsin state the state supreme court case there's a point at which you mean movement you may enter this kind of rationale here any movement you make your power after you've been pulled over will give the police justification to search you and that's simply not case and that basis we're asking that you  reverse the trial court here and you're asking for a reversal i'll write well yes you are to prevail on a reversal of a motion to suppress well if the if the evidence of the and suppress evidence specific articulable facts in addition to the defendant's movements just by searching the passenger compartment about automobile we have a traffic violation that occurs at approximately one thirty in the morning using his that there was a chase this against the manifest way to the evidence is is there sufficient evidence after that to support a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime occurred yes there approaching this car and then there's the skirt of movement with the officer being very well aware of the officer approaching this car so what the status thing is that in response it seems as if in direct response to the officer approaching this car when the officer becomes within three feet of the vehicle in response to this broad display of police authority by officer caressed that that moment that he then reaches around into this back compartment of that seat left case to just that what are the other facts in law and it wasn't just him a movement well no that is correct but i'm i'm really setting long for the principles of the of the basically faith that when an officer has a reasonable articulate articulable b back and defend it making access to weapons that a pass and that the search of that vehicle is authorized and i think also what we have to look at in this case is the type of search that was conducted officer involving simply furtive movements indicate that if we're going to base a reasonable suspicion on the mere furtive movement that really everybody that ever does anything once the officer comes up to their car  saw nothing in this yet at the time and yet the guy ends up being  state have a position in the in the instance that this court were to find that the motion has been granted as to whether this matter should be remanded or not there should or would we just be  truck or an alley i think there's a story one way or the other  this idea that approaching the car is some sort of element in the analysis where there's a furtive movement in every one of these cases the police approached the car that's how they saw the furtive movement that cannot be a factor here  if if that's the case it guts the entire fourth amendment because every time the police approach karr they'll have grounds if someone moves can you clear up the special problem that we seem to have with regard to handcuffs because co to the record i said to the record they say the record i did look through and i noticed that thomas who was the passenger testified i know explicitly he testified that they were