knew that an individual approached them i mean this is not somebody calling on the phone and the voice on the phone that's anonymous this is somebody who walks up tells an information has a car with license plate number that they can check out it's somebody who can be asked for id and name and the like so it's not anonymous in the usual sense of the term it's anonymous in the sense that the officers did not take down any of that information did not seek out any of that information maybe not maybe not but it's not anonymous it's not totally anonymous they could have gotten information they could have gotten information even without asking for it by noting the license plate number correct but the but the authors did not do ok so  bloom box is to do it really in the morning and made the second time of the month when they're tend to be more mail thefts than otherwise they're places otherwise deserted except for two men walking rapidly away from the mailbox at the point where they show up about five feet away they see maelstrom scattered around the mailbox if the police had not stopped those two men i'd firearm your honor there would be nothing wrong  that point for the officers to have stopped not in the sense of a terry stop but have simply said hey guys can we talk to you know i think there's reasonable suspicion for them to stop and say because they have in their mind this looks like a crime i have a reasonable suspicion that you're the perpetrators well but it's based on nothing more than this nothing more than what i just recounted sure which this unknown person simply saying i saw two black men stealing mail from mailbox and they arrived and there were two men the testimony at the suppression at the trial was in fact about ten feet away they're walking away they want i mean we're walking rapidly i believe the declaration indicated rapidly the testimony did not indicate rapidly they were walking away they certainly weren't running away the officer testified that no there's no deal and nobody else around that's correct and it's two or two thirty in the morning as a specific contention in the district court we believe we did looking at pages eighty two eighty three of the excerpts in the motion to suppress we in fact was regarding the frisk right but the argument that you write is not argument that the first was wrong but rather to stop us from where we also argue that the first was wrong where it you know on people we argue that the risk was wrong i understand that where in the district  court we believe that by including that legal statement in the motion to suppress that that put everyone on notice that there was a challenge in fact to the frisk let's assume i get past that let's assume there's probably argued and it seems to me that if this is justified as a terry frisk it's wrong that is to say you're right our law i think is actually pretty clear on that the argument of the government makes in response to that is well this is a search this search clinton with a lawful arrest and we know that we allow searches instant to arrest sometimes to occur just before the arrest why is that  valid justification for the search that's an argument that was not presented anywhere the word probably because the reason that argument wasn't presented that you did because you didn't argue the illegality the first well again we believe we don't believe we believe that the government understood that because  unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment now if we had not raised the argument with respect to the pat down then why did the government feel it needed to wouldn't fact address the argument with respect to the pat down the government responded let's assume the government does not  the argument that it now makes that this was a valid search incident to have to arrest let's assume that argument properly in front of us why is that argument wrong  stop they stopped and what other information was there at that point well there's a little more information once they stop them and i'm assuming it's reversible stop not only is this e mail scattered around according to the testimony of the officers indicate that somebody in fact that there's probable cause to believe that he in fact had stolen that piece of mail from the mailbox just never look the officers didn't see the name or address on the envelope they didn't know who the envelope w terms of probable cause also the fact that they did not run they were cooperate there was nothing in the tape any nervousness on their part there wasn't any stitching on their part there was no information known to the officers other than there may in fact have been fast the coroner yours may have participated in that but nothing to demonstrate a sufficient probable cause to arrest them and so after the search was conducted and they then retrieved teenagers and i don't believe the government even press that they're armed and dangerous certainly not the officers did not suggest that ok thank you thank you