concluding as a matter of law that the behavior of the officers during the initial attention including a demand for identification from mr bush it was reasonable under terry versus ohio mr christian contention that the trial court was incorrect because three cases issued by this court unambiguous compelling individual to identify himself during a terry stop violates the fourth amendment case it's clear from their testimony that their story was not that there that they were investigating the crime of brandishing the gun when they questioned mr christian in the hallway their first and only well in this case mr miyagi argues that the failure to produce identification or the giving of what the officers termed a false name then gave the basis for an arrest under the sea civil code ordinance false reporting seems to me that's a red herring kind of argument because in all the cases decided by this court lawson carrying martinelli there was a statute that says that made it pretty minimal to either not tell the officer your correct name or tonight you have identification in this circuit the statute would violate the fourth amendment without more in this case it seems to me clear that the officers had difference between the civil rights cases because the officers went on to find when they touch him down to the vehicle the only purpose of which w for him to produce what they considered to be valid identification mr christian was a arrest got into the vehicle that was all sorts of other probable cause to arrest but what the officers told him up in the hallway was absent the production one they said we ran your name through our computer and there's no giving up the false name how not being in the seattle police department's computer and giving a false name to the logical connection i don't know but they said you're not wh don't condemn him for not considering this question under those cases but i do believe that he didn't actually just if you look at his written order did not actually get to that issue because he found that the request for identification w permissible under the terry umbrella which is standing alone is wrong under the law the published cases in this circuit so a the other reason i don't believe he got to that issue was because below the government's theory was that they didn't have to get to the issue of probable cause to arrest that that was not their argument that all of this occurred before there was probabl i'm going to save whatever time i have for a bundle i would like to point out however that my client has made efforts to gain release tending this appeal it's been delayed by the fact that his prior counsel is appointed the judge he now has about fifteen months girl who indicated that the man had been waving a gun owner if that's all they had that would be probable cause but then they went further than that they responded interviewed for the young girl she was and they describe her demeanor which was consistent with the nine one one call she was sitting there a call she would frame liam in fact it took time for them to calm her down and then she gave them a very clear complaint about what happened and it wasn't just general that she indicated that they had an argument that during that argument he pulls a gun down and waved it around the officer questioned her on that because it would it would make a difference whether or not the gun was actually pointed at her or it was just brandished and she didn't exaggerate the fact she merely s talked to him he's very nervous because i'm about a guy and he's very evasive in fact that the officer sounds like he appears to be playing word games you have a gun on you i don't have a gun on my person which led them to ask another question well do you have  result of judge who now or did not proceed to the history of probable cause and has written or asked to the issue of how does the consent relates of the demand for identification the question is whether that c onsent whether the illegality of the demand for the identification the subsequent consent and whether there were in or intervening circumstances that would have  that is some substance of what they say and there are there's other information related to the crime other than i did the personal identification that i suppose could be criminalized in the obstructing context but the problem here then is when everyone says rick james  the officers aren't satisfied by that as the other witnesses to the events and then the only reason they conclude that he's given them a false name is because in hard to imagine given the name rick james but the fact that you can't find the record the name rick james and some computer somewhere give rise to any kind of suspicion about anything i mean that is  the end all the test of whether or not you are or