right but you know but they follow him they take their oath by their conduct you know a reasonable person would not believe that there were three to leave because they didn't have to tell me there was freedom he was really at the very beginning to have a beginning right and in said if that is true and i did not explicitly argue that he was subject to some kind of fourth amendment seizure prior to the taxicab station perhaps i was too cautious in that position because you know arguably even at the taxicab station they did not have reasonable suspicion at that point to detain him i don't i'm not  one major additional fact which was that the explanation that he would get the innocent explanation for why he would have gone to his truck and moved than that he had heavy bags and was going to put them in the truck in the police officers mind i mean but but prior to even searching the truck i mean they now know that there might have been another reason why he was he didn't want them they they thought they knew that that was where their attention was focused but if we go back to that corroborated the informant but if we go back to the informant i mean the informant information was never cooperate yes there were details that matched i mean there were specific there was specific information given by the confidential source that matched no question about that i mean they were able to locate the truck on august eleventh the second encounter but you know i think what's significant is that yes all of the information matched but you know they never found distribution quantity of drugs and mr nick nelson so the information provided by the confidential s side cited to us what i thought was the controlling supreme court case involved in that the tip to the drug agent that arriving in chicago on such and such a train is the defendant and he's going to be carrying heroin and the agent goes to the train station and lo and behold emerging from the train at just the hour the informant predicted is the defendant and the officer finds heroin on the person why doesn't that case also control with regard to the corroboration that the agents had previously in connection with the smell the money the prior incident where he'd been writing large sums of money as i mean everything the informant told of checked out except for that crucial fact yes but we now know that he wasn't put depositing black pearls in his truck he was probably removing the drugs that were on his person and stick creating them in his truck from which he then tried to divert the attention of the agents when they question so everything checks a found the money they were going to let him go through with the money and so i thought when he knew he was being watched of course he would have after right but i can judge from an objective standpoint i mean you know and without the drugs which also corroborates right and that is her operation right you credit that point was kind of glossed over right but i think it was lost on the district court well you know without knowing the answer to the question about i mean you know did they ever field test the stuff were i mean that's what they claimed that you know it was just loose power in the shade inc yet there was no evidence that they actually feel tested it for the presence of methamphetamine you know i mean so and i didn't want to ask because i don't know the the question and there but i know that you know but i think this is a close case about the search of the truck with the kind of well i guess the consent and you know i think the preference would have been to go get a warrant that's what the warr on appeal now the defendant tried to move that back to an earlier period of time which i believe is precluded for two reasons number one unless the court unless of the this is you're on a conditional plate and that was not really part of the record that was not the part of the argument that looked at me officers were going to search very quickly at the scene in front of him in front of him so he was willing to say well he wasn't worried about what they were going to find it oh that's true too so i don't think i don't think explanation under one explanation number two i'm going to take a taxi and once he's detained explanation number three i need a vehicle to pick up my mother which is totally inconsistent with everything else and so by this time  we talk to anybody in the street you don't have to answer yes that's true i mean but i guess my point is once you're free to leave you know the law enforcement should not be