maybe you're asking whether the officer could ask him for his driver's license or whether the officer to detain him i'd like to answer those questions separately under oregon law if the police officer doesn't witness the traffic violation he does not have authority to detain a driver for that traffic violation officer still admitted that he had not witnessed the traffic violation furthermore the only traffic violation that's in the record that i can think of to offer the court is the one that was officer silver had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity according to what officer so much so he himself did not think that a crime had been committed unusual behavior perhaps but unusual behavior and criminal behavior are very different and that what we've got is a man who is trying to drive this enormous truck is a rental truck clearly not one he's going to be accustomed to driving and he's dropped something it we and this record i believe that the court is yes and that is because of how the hearing was conducted around that concession in other words the question of whether it's a consensual encounter or  mean i don't mean to imply that they're just the two ends and trying to focus on the difference between whether a police officer needs only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity versus that moment where the police officer did need a reasonable i don't want the chair or this court certainly think i was trying to trick someone into complacency if you find that somehow the government waived something then i guess that's that's where you decide but i would call your attention to you  this court may it's regarding those sorts of stops that are less than probable cause terry stops that the the court in addition to analyz that quantum of evidence that the police officer may have is that reasonable or not also i think in all of those cases analyzes the quantum of force used so that for instance in this case  that as soon as he saw the truck he noticed that the tires were up on the curb that was a parking infraction he noticed also the defendant out of the vehicle shining a flashlight looking around he approached him he asked for an oregon driver's license and i believe his testimony was very direct on that issue as soon as the defendant could not produce an audio or a driver's license but produced in oregon identification because he was driving while suspended that's why he didn't have the driver's license so that's that's the first justification then are there is i think the second justification and that justification is the justification presented and that is that these are for this officer had a reasonable basis to make inquiry and investigate it's four o'clock in the morning there's a u haul truck parked up on the curb there's someone out on the looking around using a flashlight those circumstances i think require him even though he may not a lot i'm i'm arguing to form i guess one he did have a specific violation in mind but secondly even if he did not but that gave him certainly some reasonable basis to do what he did which was to ask some questions of the thing and that was why i mentioned in the brief this business about it being a consensual encount it's he did not use force he did not display a weapon he didn't put his hands on the defendant it was a very reasonable thing for the officer to do so on both of those grounds i think he had crime or was it enough i think his phrase was that the officer thought there was something weird through it and that's the that that's the issue that this case raised i think here we do have a situation where there is a parking infraction very specific but we also have an officer who i think i think in my opinion is entitled it is i think it's the only one of the area around the vehicle and my recollection of the record is that mr chen and all he gave two different explanations a his car do a computer check and find out about this privilege but that's not what officer so i did i was true and then that goes back to merely the traffic violation level  point on on investigating that traffic violation oregon is very clear that the detention for any traffic violation is meant to be very specifically tailored to that traffic violation as you will not from the case you wrote when you were there were going supreme then what do they do because if that is only a pretext to stop we know they're permitted to do that underground we know they can do that but if they still have to go directly to dispelling or confirming the things that made them have