should have been allowed to leave the traffic stop when he asked to do so second mr meyers was initially searched and not frisked and there was no probable cause to do so third the strip search of mr meyers was under reasonable and therefore unconstitutional i'd like to start by discussing why a passenger in a routine traffic stop should be allowed stop and the officer testifies there's no reasonable suspicion that anybody committed a crime when they stopped the car however during her interactions with the with the eventually defend the distinction here is that when mr meyers was seized first of all or we don't believe that there was reasonable suspicion to continue to detain him at the number that he asks to leave which is only one minute and ten seconds song the case is the reason this case is different as mr myers when he asked that question he no longer was acquiescing to the government's reason that the court found that passengers were detained were detained had to do with the fact that they were acquiescing to the officer show of authority and that in this case  ok so i think that the problem really goes back before terrorism if you johnson it goes back to maryland wilson and that's the case where initially the supreme court examined whether or not  officer can order a passenger out of a car and the court found that it could now went back and listened to the oral argument in that case and the justices had a lot of concern almost half of the world where's the line does it just stop there or get an officer detain someone without reasonable suspicion at a traffic stop indefinitely throughout that traffic stop and in fact i think it's no three of  the majority recognizes that they are not answering that question and that it is still in question we don't think that the facts the holding in johnson or closes that out i don't think that  presents a very clear opportunity for this court to examine you know what is it when a passenger lete asked to leave and there's no reason to hold him there why is it that we should keep him but why would you say that there yeah i understand the court's concern and you know all of course it looked at this for officer city so there's really two i think things i need to address to answer your honor's question versus what reasonable suspicion that distinction is a significant one and this is one where mr meyers requested to leave and at the moment he requested that so is the officer under your view of things required to accept that statement face value is an oxymoron because there's no such thing as a routine traffic stop or the officer engaged in that stop and the moment the stop could turn something far from the teeth and so i mean the concern here is if you alter safety and what's and i understand your hours concern with that i think that the supreme court it's everyone's concern officer safety is obviously everyone's concern it's a legitimate way to interest but as discuss have to remember to think about the context here and i think that the question is is a routine traffic stop more dangerous to a police officer than a regular interaction on the street and if there are two people walking down the street and an officer wanted to stop and talk to one and want you to walk away an officer would have to have reasonable suspicion to stop that second person from leaving the scene and there's nothing magical about a routine traffic stop that makes it more and the evidence shows that officer testified that this was a search pursuant to probable cause and the officer  when we see on the video the two officers who very first interact with mr meyers after there's a mention of a gun there lifting up his shirt that is a search and it is not frisk it is they're not patting down the outside of his clothes the officer officer w case and all of this misses when there's a tip about a man with a gun and all of them hold that there is reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk person not that there is probabl had probable cause to do a full search which is what he did in this case that's our position that's what i need to address do you think the officer at that point frisking now is go back to what you think the officer had the right to do is standard this was exposed and at that time a flashlight is being shown upon it so this is a very and i do know i saw that i saw the video too but i think is that i notice about the exposure of his private parts it was more vertical and horizontal the horizontal would be like put pants then everybody but you could see it because kim was up and down so the other words it's almost a you pull your pants open and more this vision not that vision of his nudity i would disagree that it was only vertical i think that when you watch he does not just pull his pants out he's pulling them down and there's another officer who shining a is strip search was justified when they felt they had a weapon and it was in his underwear yes we can see that it was a justified strip search what we don't concede is that the manner in which it was done just made it essentially constitutional so we think and i think the district court well you know if you're going to give me at least thirty six pack that you said that you can see that it would be justified strip search but you don't see that the ma which you what it was the manner in which it was done made it constitution so there's four factors under the under the bell factors and of the last one is was it justified or not and and you can  and then suspicious things started happening and it and bush well for when he went first pulled in the gas station is of a major road sam rittenberg both of our and he and the mr moultrie pulled into the gas station and he went through the whole parking lot through some open spots that normally would have been were he the driver pull in to respond the place he pulled slowly all the way through around the palms has to guess ation itself and then went over in the last side of the station by a dumpster and during the course of the polling when the officer was behind the s u v he knows that both the passenger and the driver are moving about and so that raises concerns of course as well because moving about woody shilled that's all you could see it healed he saw movement and officers were i mean i think officers are keyed in for a concerns legitimate concerns for safety and when they when he finally got behind and kind of park behind me as you being out of the car  finally the but that was afterwards he started asking about do you have a driver's license and his interaction with mr moultrie on the tape kind of shows strange things going on when he spoke to mr moultrie who appeared to be quad of mr moultrie was kind of acting in concerns about also safety and so he sees movement towards the floorboard and then of course that makes the officer concerned and mr maule to the driver saying stuff about as far as i sense and so he has is a water papers from the defendant that there are weird things going on not only because of the what would have just happened but also as i mentioned how the driver and passenger were moving about in the car in the test when he was also from also walk off that even after the  part the defendant was moving about in the car as well so when there is movement there's some suspicious or not officer safety and so the officers entitle to investigate the tale of violation and in doing so we can ask of course the registration the license and the insurance for the car and in the course of that then run them once and warrants in germany during the course of that conversation that's when that other information came out where he's talking them trying to get all this information out and the defendant is acting driver's license he's trying to find out because what often happens is that when a driver can't drive because he's under suspension oftentimes a police officer will let the passenger drive so he's asking the passenger the defendant in this case mr myers whether or not he had a drivers  stopped he thought or why did he think they had drugs i think that as a routine thing that the officers rude to me that they had drugs you know now that you're hearing about them that makes it routine that they had drugs again and during the ever seen in my life actually he was on supervision for heroin conviction ok court ok all right people to self medicate yeah they do a lot of people self medicate me with that but here in this case little bit different because the defendant told the stuff and then as soon as he did that almost immediately oh yeah i'll let you off the hook i just wanted to hear that because i think that's really won't get answered in this case and maybe maybe not you know a lifetime of mine but it's one thing think that the defendant asking to get out a car or something that is that the officer had a right to deny him that request so the second question is excuse me what about the search that was conducted and i think given the information that we've already kind of gone through that if the officer actually did have sufficient information a problem cause to believe that there was talk of man or evidence of crime in the possession of the defendant and he reacts as soon as he hears it as you hear on the on the video in response to that information rather quickly but i think that based on all those facts and them and the ten contemporaneously given by face to face person who may suffer harm consequences because of revealing that information there information officer white off walks over to the driver side with where the doors opened and he's trying to maintain the situation i think officer bradish knew that the unusual is going on so we asked mr meyers to put his hands on his head and well he said and he walked around and that's when the when the initial first took place and it was really continuous search of the first i think you qualified as because it patdown i think of the waist area and did lift up the shirt and then because there was a safety issue and because also white off thought there was a problem with how things were falling in that the defendant still had his hands on his head and therefore in freedom of movement of his the gun was and the there's of the folded up heroin in the little wash pocket side of the jeans you pull that out and talk about where there was cocaine or not and then the officer this showing his care instead of just doing a complete frisking completing what he had started he asked officer bieber to shine a flashlight under the seat where the defendant had been sitting because he thought human reaching under there maybe that's where the gun was if it wasn't oc and as soon as that was a negative result he then started doing the rest of his pat down and you see on the video the first that he goes in for legs and then he reaches up as you are said to the to the growing area and then he thought the gun and as soon as he felt the gun of course he said there it is and then the defendant said kind it's obviously difficult to get to where the gun was but he pulled the the pants out in order to to look in to see whether or not there was a gun there so it was a it was the most reasonable way to do it in the least intrusive fashion  because of the facts in this case which we believe that he was exposed to the public and to the other officers on the scene that is is why this is an unreasonable search in this case but does when it words the facts of it w i think that it has to do with again the exposure of mr meyers and what we view is i'm watching the video that he was exposed to you know very well that gas station and you know this is not on the side of a dark road this is in a while that area has a flashlight trained on his private area and he has exposed and so we think that is significant all strip searches where touching and searching within the underwear  very limited lee in turning him when they knew he had the gun and that they could have done that to protect his privacy as well in this case and that we've been very easy very simple and reasonable would have made this the manner in which this was done more reasonable or one of them hassle go shopping at the store we think that those that person should be allowed to leave because there's no reason to keep a passenger in there if i'm with my over driver on the way to the airport and the my over driver gets his speeding ticket and i have to catch my flight would it be reasonable that i have to stay there until the traffic stop is done or come back after another we think i should be allowed because another group finally we think you're are this case really is about officer safety but you cannot fix the issue of officer safety by stripping away the precious rights of the fourth and then thank you thank you