good morning your honour's this appeal challenges no factual findings made below but only the legal conclusion which of course require no difference from this court it is undisputed in this appeal police had no basis to detain at gunpoint and search mr harvey and that fact is key to the question of whether police used the least intrusive means to determine the identity of  was the initial purpose of the stop even to police did have reasonable suspicion to seize mr bower which we dispute for the reasons laid out in the brief as well as the required were it brief police did not use the least intrusive doesn't davison suggest that the safety concerns can come st before the questions i don't believe those safety concerns pertain to either one of them and as applied to this case i think if you look at the safety concerns what are i mean we have to get into the reasonable suspicion issue if you want to talk about safety concerns and we know criminal activity there's no evidence of criminal activity afoot on that day i mean the purposes relied upon for the stop and this was resided by abraham that he put the buys in the alley police st of all he wanted to investigate this after her three days earlier that's not criminal activity a foot secondly he wanted to investigate this so called disturbance which was not a disorderly conduct it was not a trespass that's addressed extensively in my grief so there's absolutely no crime that occurred on september th and then the rd reason was to serve a trespass notice on the balance this is not a case where we're talking about cracking down bank robbers there was not violent there was not a england me interrupt and come back to where i started it seems to me what you're what you're arguing now as i understand that it's really one issue it's not two because if there is reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk i daresay stop context random my terms of in terms of colorado much how much investigating you can do and how long you can take to do it but a frisbee is something as you know we're back to terry's main issue which was frisk which and again just just so that i mean of course the missouri state constitution grants everyone the right to carry a firearm and that's not disputed in this case so the mere fact that someone is carrying a firearm even a concealed weapon that's not a basis for stop it's not a basis for service i believe you have to cross asked earlier were guarding what were the least intrusive alternatives i suggested simply a question which one of do that i mean the it's possible that these two guys will monitor up at that time right i mean you have to you're asking for a certain amount of delay before the the encounter the th amendment requires the officers to utilize the he did the on the record shows that they ordered him to stop to put their hands in the air that the officer approached abraham approached him and said he was going to conduct a frisk and ask him if he had any weapons and at that point  mr harvey said yes there is a gun in my pocket so what i mean doesn't that matter that it i mean he asked him st that's certainly leeson less intrusive excuse me then immediately doing the frisk i well he asked him after he was seized after he seized a gun point by the way after he it was in the process of conducting the press all we're saying is there's a lot of other me at the th amendment requires at least intrusive means and that's  baron that's an th circuit case i noted two less intrusive means a rd one would be contacting this probation officer or initiating a consensual encounter all of those would be considered less intrusive means rather than treating the bower or treating mr harding the same as mr gubb our keep in mind while there was a reasonable suspicion to believe that one of those people were mr barrett there was a one hundred percent guarantee that one of them was not this for the bout and that's what we're focusing on in this case there's a lot of other means of abraham was well aware mr herzog mr barrett been arrested and this idea that you know he was investigating the theft from a couple of days ago he knew he was arrested he knew he was in jail he had the opportunity to go interview him if he wanted to so that that the basis for the stop at least that part of the basis for the stop is is not enough reasonable suspicion  as noting no crime occurred that day so the fact that someone calls the cops on someone that's not enough reasonable suspicion and police knew already know he had not been served with any trespassing notice so we believe but then you didn't somebody didn't put it in your family can order i will i will twenty eight k that your honor thank you thank you protect their personal safety and they maintain status quo during the course of the stop and i don't think that's exactly the holding of davis and which is the thing that officers can do what the whole point of the chris from what justifies this is a reasonable suspicion a very low standard that officers are going to be in danger during the course of the investigation not at some point after they've already asked a bunch of questions so the point is that davison is that when you walk up into a situation you get the security situation briefly of limited intrusion and that you can stop two different people who meet the the reasonable suspicion even if you don't know which one of them is the person who jr suspicion is completely directive and then asking that person if they have a firearm and then we'll let that person tell you that in fact if you have a and at least that's my view at this point i mean the theft of the firearms as the basis for reasonable suspicion seems a little bit tough i mean it was four days later and there was an intervening arrest would you address that issue that seems to me more difficult i see two different i think yours reste your different questions on addressing sequentially so the st questions about the four days the thing that the thing that we know this court has repeatedly is that people who have firearms tend to keep them for a long time say not to get rid of that set of property driven concerns that come up to the officers so we know that he returned the magistrate held that it was an unwelcome return to the to the location where he had previously had a physical altercation where he's alleged to have stolen the suspicion in fact what it says is if the trespassing is involved someone who is armed and dangerous if it's repeated return to the same location if there are other property related crimes in the area and all of those things are in th another property crimes during the arrest on this at the mistakes only someone who were tied up rd time and the officer said caused a disturbance and that's why he wanted to go and stop kyle on that day and of course they found him nearby right where he the weapon before he learns about the warrant but i point the court to street for street cites a case called secure and discusses the facts there and secure there was probable cause to search but then there was  boortz could be an intervening cos i think the court should look at those that discussion in the street and look and see that it doesn't necessarily matter that there's a temporal difference here or that the warrant is an intervening cause it had and also that no matter who even for the appellants if he fails to object makes questions of fact on questions of law are going to get the noble review even if there's a failure to object by even the help and so that those that waiver argument i should not be included in the it into there is discussion about the incident at robina road so when the prairie view officer is interviewing the balor he talks about the incident he talked about him staying at ravinia road so technically it wasn't arrested for that but there certainly reference to him staying there and that incident that's in the it been them there are three cases that are ordered garcia talks about a nd stop by late in the th amendment peters the th circuit case talks about reasonable suspicion being exhausted and the eight so there's certainly authority for the proposition that you cannot continually and indefinitely continue to arrest someone for the same opinion or even stop them just because that offense remains under investigation regarding what  immediately when requested that is not a trespass you can look at the statute you can look at the law it doesn't matter what labels police even give to it it has to be supported by facts so we believe suppression is warranted in this case and honor if there are no other other questions i don't have anything further thank you very much