ineffective for failing to move to suppress his client's two statements on the first issue there are three sub issues the first whether the first was justified based on a reasonable suspicion that first he did not know that he was obstructing an authorized act because the situation here did not appear to be a normal traffic stop it given the context of a case the car the defendants in drive into a parking probable cause and you're and you're correct that it's the question is did the officer have probable cause to arrest but because the situation does not look like a traffic stop the officer still needs to have probable cause that the defendant was knowingly obstructing officers here have the authority to direct and control the movement of both drivers and passengers correct and that is correct and they there's no question that in the record that your client these individuals olie were plainclo honor and that regardless of the obstructing arrest or arrest for obstructing for disobey medawar that's also pretty offensive disobey the police officer to give be taken into custody for if the officer needs to have probable cause of all of the elements of a crime in order to arrest someone and he's the officer needs to see that this vendor would know that he honor the plainview exception does not apply in this case for two reasons first and foremost is the fact that he finds this substance offers a gardener finds a substance only after he has illegally fris has not phrased the defendant's prior to shine a flashlight in the pocket the second reason the point of view exceptions is not gone is that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy on th on their person and you don't expect a person a normal individual walking down the street to shine a flashlight into your pocket and  camping where the officer sunshines a flashlight into in a vehicle it's a very it's a personally intrusive search you almost have to to touch the person able to do it and so because of this insurance yet he was not given any any such  material delay and the testimony is that officer gardner was able to quote move around the front of the s u v and get in front of mr breen and within three to four seconds of officer probable cause but the fact that this delay again is only a media mere seconds shows that mr brennan was not obstructing the officers  it was it would be prejudicial error if both of the statements were in fact suppressed and that's because the defendant did and that's just based on the controlled substances charge the heroin that was found on the passenger seat of the vehicle and it's important because it was found after mr brennan had been taken out of a car in some minutes after two statements were not emitted into trial and in fact in the state's read the state did not argue that the defendant would not be prejudiced is similarly big don't argue that the first statement was admis so really this is the second issue you want in effect in this turns on the invisibility of mr brains the second statement and whether it was the result of impermissible question first warned the waiter look for curative measures seeburg recognized that officers often and in fact rarely will emit to deliberately withholding miranda warnings so other factors are taken into consideration leave he been handcuffed both of the officers testified he was not free to leave at this point thus miranda warnings will acquire and yet officer johnson a twenty one year veteran who did not give these warnings before asking this don't need to be present on i believe you're correct that it is you you can weigh which ever factors are more important given the specific facts of the kit you are here every one of the fixes completeness and this one question is basically again that's just one of the factories best present in this case if you look at the evidence from the second interrogation it's close in time to the first questioning it's the same two officers present in a reasonable person would those officers what we don't know what if if you were to deny that we don't know its officers would have continued questioning him in fact it's a common interrogation tactics to challenge a defendant's prior statement and that's what the officer was doing here is response and so i ask think in that situation the reign of warnings as we work wired in should have been given in this case if there are no further questions for them for these reasons mr brain requests that th original question was a deliberate seeking of an increment or a statement as yours pointed out the defendant had been standing there protesting his innocence the whole time and even while they're flying to us both marijuana or for some reason mechanical or otherwise or inoperable and they decide i'm pulling back in because i don't have headwinds it's not safe to drive at night is  that there is a lot of gang activity a lot of drug activity in the area i don't know if there's a specific statutory different mission apologized to could do to people that live in a high crime area by virtue of the fact that they live in a high crime area sacrifice some of their constitutional rights i don't believe so your honor however it does go to the totality of the circumstances when turning whether or not the police have reason to search the subject either in  well both officers testify that it was not high crime area they didn't know where the defendant was going to have been running away to get someone around the corner it could have been turning away trying to hold whether or not it is you know out of his pants before continued walking away now whether the guy they chased him down after three or four seconds or whether they chased him down after a three block chase isn't really the point the point is that he knowingly obstructed a valid traffic stop and know the structure of the performance of the beefier their safety during a traffic stop when they have the right just to determine where passengers and driver should go what they can do  it is it wasn't in plain view where it's dark out it's february it's presumably there's not a lot of light around and you can see are completely allowed to shine a flashlight on defendant inside  you sooner or however i believe the overall question is whether or not the circumstances were sufficiently different that the defendant knew was a different situation and i think that even though it is perhaps not that long after the order in an hour and twenty minutes is a fair amount of time the same two officers it's clearly a different situation one is when he's you know outside of a store in public ignite the other one is obviously a much more custodial situation obviously a different thing reason  upholding counsel cites arizona johnson and u s supreme court case however that case not control here specifically there was a footnote in that case which said that they were not let me find it that they did not for closed consideration of whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous honoree man so the question of arming  dangerousness was really to not addressed in arizona the johnson in that doesn't control second opposing counsel states that the officers feared for their safety because they thought the defendant maybe running around the corner trying to hide this was not a headlong flight this was not a board lho case again it's just a matter of seconds before officer garners able to get in front of mr green then in fact the officer johnson at one point says that testifies that mr brennan was just leading away from leaning towards walking away from the officers and this slight movements as seen in the people the smith case knowing we obstructing an authoress order if a police officer entered your home without war and the police officer gives you no order to a person who's there stay right here don't believe in the person this will be fewer and leaves is that a defense to obstructing justice to the fact that the inability of the regional entry is that a defense to be a truck and it's not correct the the problem with your argument is that you conceded the grief that the stop itself was proper that there was a traffic violation the stop was proper and the officers here view for you to order him back to the vehicle that's the problem with  which may or may not be a persistence of well i i would i would agree i think that