that matched the description of the tip they got in the area that a guy that he's brandishing a gun on the street and the officer doesn't have any authority to stop him and find out what's going on is that your right based on what he had not read not nothing differently but he shouldn't have done anything that nothing at all he should investigate and somebody says that somebody has got a gun and you don't investigate to see if that's true and  if it is your position i'd like to know what he said what statute gives you that forty right no that's not my position today my position is that while you're saying that the driveway is private property and so the officer would need something clothing description on the same street is brandishing a gun on the street when he sees the kid matching that he asked him to come over and at that point the kid responds by going into the garage so i'm not really clothing similarity here it's just based on the clothing that  know they weren't they were never specified but officer walker did say that one of the individuals did live in house but it needs to be in order to be an invite he needs to have permission so who was that they gave him the permission and the statute doesn't require overbroad and ask them to tailor it you know this this issue is raised under plain error because it wasn't raised in the trial court wasn't raised were there and so the court can address it under the second i  there's no evidence there's an absence of the up as he listened to the entire argument it sounds as if i am am wants us to negate that he somehow or prove that he wasn't an invite to and that's not how the supreme court the burden m by a preponderance and the way that a man would do it is fairly easy call the person who invited him onto the property and have that person testify i invited him and i live at that address i have authority to invite well i don't even think we have that here because we don't even know we don't know who these people are we don't know if respondent even knows this unknown person who lives there we have only the officers stipulated testimony to establish that he was there for moment not for a very lengthy time we don't know how long the sonnet was on that driveway we also don't know if we respond it was on that driveway with somebody who knew the owner rather than respondent knowing the owner of the residence and the one thing even if respondent wants to draw is absolutely unreasonable because remember respond it's conduct in this case which i will get to in a moment in the context of the fourth amendment was that he was hiding the gun under a couch when the officer came out now with his gun ownership was legal and authorized and he had permission by the owner to be on that private property he wouldn't be hiding it so this is not a case where the exemption is even remotely proven and frankly if a respondent or any litigant wants to prove this exemption they can take the stand and talk about how they were invited and how they were invited with permission nothing in this record supports those inferences this is an absence of proof we are not required to negate certainly an absence of proof and so the exemption was never proven and by that same token there is no fourth amendment violation in this case the officer did everything reasonably in this case the officer didn't just act on a tip of a man with a gun walking down the street in fact if we take a look at the juvenile courts remarks below the juvenile court even admitted that hey maybe if the officer had twenty when he first s think even even counsel has to concede that a nine one one call is different than an anonymous tip there's a there's an additional in to show reliability with respect to a nine one one call because they're all trace and every citizen knows that they're traced so to that extent it's not exactly the equivalent of an anonymous tip but in this case that's almost an academic inquiry because the officer didn't seize anybody based just on a tip now there was some talk earlier about how the officer shouldn't have investigated the way he did the fourth amendment deals with seizures it says nothing about investigations the officer can investigate anyway he says she's that so long as he doesn't unlawfully sees somebody and what the officer myself and counsel about did the officer pulled his gun on respondent before or after the first and i think i think the testimony is a little unclear but but i'll admit let's assume for a minute that the officer pulled the gun before the furtive from behind the couch or i'll shoot and respondent didn't even comply at that point but but again it is a matter of moments so that portion of the interaction where the officer pulls his gun orders responded out of the garage and then responded comes out and gets handcuffed that's a seizure no bastion but that's a seizure that is supported if not by probable cause at that point because the officer has a great deal of information at the very least supported by reasonable articulable suspicion under terry and terry tells us that a show of force with a gun and handcuffing doesn't turn a seizure under terry into an arrest it's not the show of force that's relevant to make the distinction between terry seizure and arrest it's the length of time and when we take a look at the facts here when the time was negligible the officer immediately after handcuffing responded had him down assured himself there wasn't a gun on the stand and went and found the gun in the couch and it wasn't that difficult because the gun was in plain view right under the couch now that brings another point to that supposed to prove if he has an privacy interest he's supposed to prove that the area searched he has a privacy interest in it and he never did that in this case so ultimately the seizure of the gun was completely independent of the seizure of respondent and if respondent seizure was illegal it doesn't cause the gun recovery to be illegal the gun is just not fruit and frankly neither is the properly admitted so what that leaves us with this is last issue and i realize that the arguments that i've been making to this court with respect to the constitutionality of this no gain association no gain contact and dition has been rejected but i want to take one very short opportunity to ask the score to reconsider that again and the reason i do this is because it challenges to a probation condition is at its core an as applied challenge that probation condition doesn't apply to anyone else but respondent so respondent carries the burden to overcome the presumption of constitutionality by showing how that condition actually applies on constitutionally to him and he's never done that in fact none of the respondents in these cases has ever done them it's based on hypotheticals alone i thought hypotheticals it's very clear no contact with yanks somebody who lives close to school as family members are gang members here that i'm highly back condition you know what i can actually agree with you your honor and still say i don't know i spirits his mom a step that step dad's a barber he has two young siblings seven and eight years old none of them are gang members responded doesn't work so there is not a chance in this case that and so many who goes to was barred from entering belgium that was the unconstitutional application we don't have any information here to show us what the unconstitutional application is assuming this isn't just an academic inquiry that this minor actually needs some direction he says he's truly confused as to what he's supposed to do there is a number of cases the word illegal getting it to be honest i think that  decision from this court suggested that no gain association itself the science contact that was the problem i think by putting illegal in front of it it unnecessarily restrict us strix the protection of the minor because a minor could potentially be associating with a gang member not doing anything illegal and still get shocked and that's primarily the juvenile courts concerns in these cases we've spoken to juvenile judges we've spoken to for these reasons and those in our parades thank you point out that again j w alice own ice cream court case there was no evidence your hearing and in fact the probation that nation probation condition in j w is similar to the one that we have here in the sense that it was extremely broad ban that infringes on constitutionally protected liberties and in here also we don't have me now to ensure here because we know the details we know that a man has mandatory school ordered as part of the conditions and that is mandatory drug treatment and we know that he has two friends that have gang associations so there are gang members around and he goes he lives in markham which is an area with gangs and he goes to school to me park high school which is two towns go over somewhere because it's just it's just too bad there's no narrow tailoring and that's why i think the court should just strike it so that they know they need to actually look at it and just and sort of just take it in this case too which is different from some of the other poker cases