what he has and if you give those copies to mr mangan he will get them to us and i will we will consider your request i would just like to you to make clear the state has conceded that the council's assistance was reasonable and that the direct appeal is based entirely on on an error  the law by the stars of the real goes i think it's it's distinguishable real had to do with officers who were trying to enter a house specifically to make an arrest the villain real and that believe it was his brother stopped them at the door and resisted the police in their effort to make an arrest when officers elastic him broached mr shit he was not looking to make an arrest he was looking for the seizure and the seizure was illegitimate mr should should have been committed to go on his way and he was not permitted to do that and his attempt to disengage after cooperating with the officers after providing his name which officers elastic said he was looking for the names of people who were witnesses to this alleged fight and that essentially is what we believe that the dividing line was at the moment they were seized it was an improper seizure and therefore mr ship was justified as the court said and more if you have a new legal search ready i'm sorry no legal seizure a person running away is not resisting or obstructing the authorized possible weapons and give him guns right corrector two people walking down the street showing no signs of having been involved in that fight he asked them whether they knew anything about why they said you know  to be on their way he said in his testimony he had no intention of letting these people beat these officers had no intention but as they collected in the area there is no intention of not stopping anybody on the street got out of his car he sees down according to moore that's it game over they should've let him go and mr ship's attempt to disengage in his ultimate flight did not give them a reasonable i should say probable cause and is being and it is being a victim of some sort of activity within the last month or two is that relevant or is that too far removed from the first stop in the in the show what you name where we're going what's going on i believe you are that it is completely irrelevant it's usenet it it has nothing to do with why mr ship was stopped in the first place and second of all even if you do accept it as this as somehow relevant there was no resolved with no further issue had mr should said no we don't know anything mr can say we don't know anything all right what about the appearance of the people who might have made the call saying that because this was during the initial questioning they said no we the people you're looking for went the other way does that strengthen your position or we could your position i personally feel your honor that's completely irrelevant although i do find it very strange that you did some just person to be told no the truth been a call made unless they actually made the call that's correct but the point is it points the police in a different direction than what they're looking at if anything that needed say any kind of suspicion the officer might have had however it appears that the officer clamped on to to his understanding ministership has been involved in an incident before but you know that as i said dividing line is at the moment of  arrest can't you if you resist in a lawful seizure according to moore that does not give the police reasonable suspicion to conduct for us and this is really what it boils down to for us situation where you know just mere presence was not sufficient in fleeing was not sufficient so that it was not brought up to the best of your knowledge not to my knowledge your honor the i do i do know  my perspective thomas is distinguishable from thomas fled the moment of putting too formal receiving approach thomas was really a potential police interaction which is but i don't know if they have any kind of procedural objections that they might have had timeliness or something like that to the to the kitchen itself and for that reason it really should be remanded that that's our position if we believe this case is clear and if the post conviction hearing react and the case law allows you to to rule on the merits here we think you would find in our favor and you know for relief  it's relevant for the proposition that flight to prevent an illegal conduct number one number two though i do understand it's late but patterson is said leave me alone we have a much more fluid circumstance we have a report of a fight with possible weapons we have an individual that reported  the officers would have or have a reasonable concept that the standard was the perpetrator we do have a different circumstance well that did that's the whole problem here if you go back and forth even if we for the sake of does not allow the fact that it was a high crime area does not own justified a search or seizure so far so good when you look at all of the fa know come down here so they dispatch a number of officers there there was an inventor and the first officer on the scene said there's a bunch of people in cars leaving this area which the officers all testified to is not in your area that they expect to receive anybody this time of night much less so there were some crime doesn't most crime happened in the middle of night i mean if it's a high crime area if it's three thirty that was one of the points that you  says did you see anything and they started walking he kind of the car and said please stop in india ask you some questions and he asked them for identification it's not certain exactly whether  justification for the fiasco the justification for the pat down is it's a separate consideration from the stuff correct at that point in time they now have the name of the individual who knows three weeks before was involved in a gun the trial judge found that it was that he advocates that the police relied on was that he was involved in a crime yet their experience relates that people that are involved in the crime especially in this area often carry guns concerns were that there was a report of an incident with a gun we have an individual who did not previously he was very nervous he kept putting his pants back in his pocket and yes at that point they formulated if they were going to  we have a different case or if he had said i don't want to talk to you maybe i mean for a year or i'm just walking away that would be different but he continued to cooperate it's sort of  approached twenty two because cooperate it's you can't walk away so we're still now we're saying he didn't try to walk away right if he had walked away it would have been a different case why not say that if you start to cooperate if should  combining both the fact that he's putting his hands in his pocket despite our worst and the fact that we know he was involved in an incident with a gun and we have reason to believe that people in these circumstances in this area