topeka place department acknowledged that they didn't have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop mister williams so they waited for him to give it to them what she did by failing to signal one hundred feet in advance that is a traffic offense and it entitled officers to do the things that officers do when stopping for a traffic offense checking identification checking for warrants issuing the officers in this case used techniques that we would associate with an arrest that is guns and handcuffs and that is reasonable if the officers believed those techniques were justified for their protection the government relies on this exception to justify these tactics in this case but to justify those that exception they must have a reasonable belief that they were necessary the government does not claim that they had any information that mister williams was dangerous the government does not claim that they had information that he was armed indeed that he had a criminal history there's no information in the record to support any inference that mister williams was armed or dangerous mccool the government relies on this derivative dangerous for mister mccoy and it's possible that that would be reasonable if there was reason to believe mister williams and mister mccloy was in the vehicle and mister williams position that there that that belief isn't reasonable based on the record they had never been seen together not on april th thirty seven days prior mister mccoy had never been seen in mister williams vehicle despite mister mccoy being under surveillance for at least a month since late march or early april according to the record they had never seen mister mccoy and mister williams together at any location associated with each other and believing that people go into this residence that they would have to be known associates and potentially working together in mister williams field to be seen at a house that  mccoy did not live in that house and that's in the record exhibit c in volume number four the affidavit for probable cause for mister mccoy's arrest that house was owned by another but the investigation questions partly playing off of just chillies question in your understanding was the was the one so either principle or sole and i think it's a sole source of information that the officers had relative to this stop the officers who executed the stop the sole source of information they had came from the task force officer sentiment is that correct ye independent information that they could have have that supported the execution of the stopper where they were lying soley on the information that was the labor to them by t of sam era lying on that information as well as another officer task force officer commutes and who was at the task force briefing but did not testify at the suppression hearing officer standing did testify at the hearing hears the source of the information to the officer sees the want radios from hair and eyes plaza and says well this is a good opportunity to sack the vehicle and make sure mccoy is not inside that well i got that now but if was in a pattern of riding along with williams what is the legal consequence of the misunderstanding in other words let's say that you had to be opposed salman who never communicated that he had any knowledge of mccoy riding along with williams at this briefing columbo here is what he thinks is some indication that mccoy rides along williams what is the legal consequence of that misunderstanding for purposes of the st officers there he says that he never had seen them together that he had never seen mister mccoy in mister williams vehicle he's unequivocal about that if mister palumbo i misunderstood it's  information that is available is information coming from santa and we've been salman's universe of information was no information of that sort we were going to just the reasonableness of the stop based upon the  to any other case or i take if you disagree with that in the so you don't have to go in detail but just give me what you think are the high differences between those cases in this in seattle we do disagree in both of those instances purdue and merrick there was an eyewitness that associated the reasonable suspicion for the officers in those cases or do a search is ongoing at the time in that case there are weapons being found it is a rule lane leading up to the house and officers have reason to believe there would be no reason to be there unless you are associated with the address in merritt there's an eyewitness that puts a homicide s this quickly if the court determines that there was reasonable suspicion to use the tactics the felony arrest have tics that were that were employed here then plain view in planes now cannot help the government either th because at least from what i can see on the video from them but because you can't tell whether the officer who saw the jar with marijuana leaves had leaned into the car and complete the investigative purpose if it existed at all was to locate mccoy they had cleared the vehicle before officer palumbo even approached the front of the vehicle so by that point they had no right to officer has to have a right to be in the area where he is mister palumbo had no right to be in the front compartment of the vehicle and i see them go right to be on the street it's an apartment he had no right to be on the street he has a right to be on the street look in the car and doesn't cross the plane what's the problem the government in this case did not argue inevitable discovery here on earth and in any event argument is under the seat  orders and may it please the court my name is jeremy i am assistant united states attorney for the district of kansas as you can tell from the record i was also the prosecutor in the matter below i do want to start off with a very short and simple ology on page five of our brief i did a poor editing job and noted that when i said it was a few days prior that the defendant was witness that is actually incorrect the few days prior was actually the murder he was observed on on april th and i think it's fairly well understood through the record that that's the case but i do apologize for a very poor editing on my part with respect to that that statement i just wanted to clear that up with the court the new law judge jones i think from the record it's fair to say that they the universe of information that the officers knew as they testified to came from the briefing that occurred just prior to  earlier in the day before the actual car stop occur because there were certainly discussions amongst the task force officers and the individuals that they were looking for just in mccoy and all the things we have based on the briefing would have come from the testimony of officers and that is correct ok well no here's what i will say it to the degree that the officers are very experienced officers and they knew probably knew the names of the individuals but i don't know that that's necessarily relevant in under the circumstances the universe of information came from the briefing which was test of justified to my officers however i think the one key factor that we're really so there at that location and out of nowhere they see a car that they know is somehow associated with mister mccoy and they know that it's a car so she with mister williams coming time there was no testimony to that they knew that mister delgado live there and that mister mccoy had an association with her so four days or five days now after the homicide it was reasonable for them to assume that he might be at that location so that's why they were staking out that location there was some confusion in the right room i wonder whether there was something there that would clarify as to whether they knew the all law enforcement writ large knew that mister williams live at the apartment or the townhouse complex at the time of the day of the stop me seventy but i know in the test cross examination last year saying  that apartment complex and so that is left unanswered nevertheless to the degree that they see mister williams as car leave based upon their understanding of the investigation into the residence on pennsylvania they knew that mister williams association with pennsylvania was significant and as judge teter notes on page sixty six in the record in her opinion that as the office as officer someone explain because the houses were associated with trafficking only persons known to or in association with the mccoys brothers would have been allowed to enter so when looking at the at the nod which that the officers had about mister williams going into that residence at pennsylvania led them to believe that he had a direct link to that residence and of the mccoys and that his late was significant enough that he can simply walk in which is do we even know that mccoy there would be there there is nothing in the record to suggest that we knew that that was the residence associated to the mccoys all associated she didn't they didn't live there right no they get what i think that that's where the confusion was necessarily about where the whether or not they actually owned the residence or whether or not they resided there from time to time i think that's really where whether or not that they're the owners on the deed of the house i can't speak to that i guess my my point is this and clarify were i'm wrong let's assume this is that drug and gun now says there are many in these drug trafficking type operations ok if it's  indiana can't get what he wants or gets what he wants and goes to pennsylvania to get more dope we have no way of knowing all we know is that they knew he was a customer we don't know that mccoy was in there we don't know that mccoy know them we don't tell me when i'm wrong we don't we have never seen mccoy we have nothing we have all we know from that one incident a month prior at the best scenario is that he is a drug trafficker drug user joyce consumer and because he is he can walk into that house what do we know beyond that from the record that is what we know ok what the officers knew with respect to their overall understanding of that long term investigation i think cannot necessarily be discounted now not all of that was brought out during the hear focusing on all we need to as i understand you conceded at the district court suppression hearing and as far as i can tell make no contrary argument to feel that if there was not reasonable suspicion to believe mccord was in the vehicle you lose my correct about that no judge you're not what my statement what what remaining arguments do you have that are consistent with what you said in district to be very clear what i was telling the district court under the circumstances that if the court did not believe that there was reasonable suspicion to to actually affectionally the stop based upon the traffic violation we lose everything from that point i then move to the next step i said judge if you if you believe that the traffic stop was fine but you believe that the felony high risk stop was an authorized then we lose everything from that point forward you know that  so so and and you as far as i can tell you agree that the high risk traffic stop the felony stop was lawful only if there was re suppressed is there is there not further th amendment inquiry that needs to take place i mean let's assume just for the moment for the sake of argument that we were to find this felony stop was unlawful are there not other th minute th amendment hauling mister williams from the car and the basis for that was based upon the reasonable suspicion everything that flowed from that event officer palumbo going to the car to clear it and then officer qual smelling it on mister williams are the basis for the search suggest quite candidly i believe under the circumstances that we could not prevail if this court did find under the circumstances that the fill in the car stop was in fact a reasonable under the th amendment w wasn't challenging that they just want to get clear what your view is oktar thank you in lesser other questions about the actual felony car stop itself i do want to again reiterate that the court really must look at it not really divorce itself from what the officers knew and why they were there to find mister mccoy and his association with so to the degree that that there is some concern that the only issue is whether or not mister williams and mister mccloy never really ever been seen together it certainly weighed heavily at least on the decision making process that the officers have that they were at a location that they believe mister mccoy was at based upon this don't know and then all of a sudden see someone that they also know is associated so those issues i think taken in total have to be w very very heavily in favor of the officers and their understanding of what they knew at the time and in that case that they didn't see they didn't see mister williams oh god oh right yeah there's really no understanding or believe that miss doane gado has any association with mister williams we just know miss don't gado was mister mccoy's purported girlfriend and that's why when they were there staking out that apartment complex but you have to put yourself and again this course made very clear not to necessarily nd guess officers but i think to some degree putting putting yourselves in the position of the officer being there and often seeing a vehicle knowing that it's associated with mccoy's thinking while this is a this can't be coincidental we we ought to you know at least follow up with this and see what happens and then the question is was it unreasonable for them to then engage in the high risk stop procedures turning to that issue judd hirsch i do want to make an engine of homes to go back to one issue that you had about the car stop again officers nelson and officer walls were the st two that were there you'll see i think it's in officer nelson's testimony this was a heavily trafficked area so there certainly were back officers that were going to come in to assist with traffic and things like that i don't want it to sound as if this is a swat team swarming on a car that  really isn't the circumstance you have the two officers who are told and again again remember this just for lack of a better word just sort of falls out of the sky yes i saw at least one of the videos and i saw who are sort of i just wondered whether there was other video evidence that i missed than the one seen in the one scene i did see two officers address him and it was on a traffic street at night all those things sort of play out in some cases but but there were people outside of the view of the vision that i saw in that film that were there at the scene at the time stop right there statement judge ok and again if we get past the issue of whether or not the high risk stop was was reasonable under the circumstances i think it's very clear that our position is one that wants officer qual smell marijuana on mister williams that was enough probable cause for them to go ahead in and engage in the search and irrespective of what officer palumbo saw but judge hart i do want to reiterate what you said there is clearly nothing in the record to suggest that judge teeters analysis was clearly erroneous about what officer palumbo did under the circumstances he indicated that his camera or its position on his body did not necessarily give exactly what his eyes were seen but what the overall scene was at the time and finally in the last couple of seconds we do believe that the issue on the search of the safe is really academic academic because under the circumstances the officers had the right to search the safe and we're simply asking for consent not to damage her or her property unless the court has any other questions we would ask that the court form the lower court's decision and find that that decision should be uphe