fleming's and his friend wayne jones were standing on the stairs of a public housing complex they were doing nothing suspicious and no calls of recent criminal activity had been received by the police nonetheless when sergeant cardwell saw them standing on the porch and on the stairs he decided to investigate but before doing so he called for backup officers and set up a meeting at which they strategize how best to approach these two men for the express purpose of preventing them from question but when a person's freedom of movement is for screenplay as full force or show that the already he is sees within the meaning of a fourth amendment and such she is or must be supported by either probable cause or reasonable suspicion them and also there were a few additional details that were brought out at the trial mainly that one of the backup officers was in full uniform and that  conceded that was in the air the issue at hand on appeal is whether it resulted in prejudice because counsel's ineffectiveness rox on whether or not this court  that the activist should have been surprise and that council's failure to present this evidence would lead to a finding that the motion should have been granted the issue boils down to the same thing joliet police department there isn't testimony at the hearing and again it child about this trust has agreement although many of the details weren't brought out what we do know is that the owner entered into this agreement with the police department not give the police the authority to seize them without reasonable suspicion the same constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures apply regardless of whether a trespass agreement existed or not you can't contract away someone else's fourth amendment right they see him and then they did the questioning which was already illegal because of the illegal seizure and if they had approached them in a different manner and not sworn with mark spied collars and not taken est the position that hav effect of blocking them if they had just approached them and said hey can we ask you some questions are you you know are you here or not this property legally who are you here to visit then i mean the outcome of you know maybe the argument would be different but and maybe the officer would have a reasonable basis to say i don't really believe you know once the questions were answered that the officer could decide well that was you know these are as shady answers or whatever but we don't even in you know the fact that there was a trespass agreement the fact that there was a no trespassing sign does not give the officers particularized reasonable suspicion that this person was committing a crime in this case you know really just boils down to whether it there was reasonable suspicion to approach and whether the officer's actions in this case from from the got all was could be interpreted by a reasonable person as being a seizure and based on the fact that the officers i think that swarm the apartment building on you know had already had in their minds that they wanted to ensure that these sun you know these one officer was in full uniform we know the cars were marks according to willie families at the hearing he testified that he and his friend were having a cigarette on the stairs and that you know five to six didn't deny that he made those statements he didn't say that he did but he sad you know he admitted he hadn't met with the other officers or the intent of ensuring that they didn't flee and at the trial really know how he gets to that conclusion but i think you know he said that he used the trespass agreement and the fact that there was since his suspicious eyes had some criminal activity that occurred weeks prior at the same location the basis for suspicion to approach and then when he asked him some questions i think he asked him you know do you know who lives here and it was not very flushed out well what the conversation was between  charged with the possession of having him but from the start the officers told was clear he wanted you know he wanted to approach willie and wayne for the purpose of stopping know the search into an incident to address resulted so from the very get go the police had no reason to believe that these two men were doing anything illegal and even after they question him i don't believe that they have enough vehicles that it's where he you know the doors of the vehicle are are actually you know stuff blocked by someone in some of the factors to consider whether they're a defendant is coffee and so for those reasons i think that it's that any reasonable person would not feel free that they could terminate the this police encounter from the very start when the officers formed and and roach and still because that really there's no reason to believe that these two men weren't allowed to just be standing there and for that reason the trial court erred in denying the motion case in fact the trial court granted the state's motion for directed verdict on the motion to quash and should have granted the motion and like i said earlier on any of the evidence that came in at trial can be considered by this court because it all these the same question of whether or not this motion would have been granted with the additional evidence and still if the court finds that counsel was in the fact of for failing to present this evidence it's because this core polese the saying that x amount of evidence was presented before the trial and then if that the motion to suppress was denied then anything that was listed at trial but that a party such as myself is using to support it would basically just be cumulative it would just be more than most presented before basically harmless but the supreme court says that a party that is trying to use evidence presented a trial to overrule  based on those factors in the trespasser agreement the officer had the ability to enquire and figure out what these men were doing there regardless of whether or not they were openly committing any crime any crime other than tr they had the officer had the ability to investigate a trust path and that's who was doing he asked them questions and found that they were evasive and they did that they didn't give details about what they were doing at this location one of the men cardwell testified did not give his name and i think the record would be pretty clear that that was the defendant because another officer testified at trial that defendant kept giving him names that would not come up in the system and it was only after another officer came up with defendant's i d card that they finally figure out who the defendant was this was back at the station so i think i think it's pretty strong support that the fan it was the one it was not even his was an officer who approached these men to ask them about whether or not they had a reason to be on this property he didn't get a proper name and he didn't receive and receive anything tales about why they were they were there and that's why the seems to me that the officers came over before kind of complaining flushing out all the issues i believe there was also testimony that they separated the two men while they were talking to them just to cause they were being evasive and they  weren't giving details about what they were doing there with the work they separated them and just to try and get to the bottom of those issues because that was the only reason that sergeant and the officers went up to these managers because of the trust  trial judge does not define this motion to suppress and because i think those findings are supported by this record this courtroom from the trial judge's denial of the trial of the defendant's motions there unclear about the timing of when all the officers approached but some in the back of officers testified at the trial that they saw officer carbine and his partner speaking to the man as they were approaching and so it seemed like all of this was happening simultaneously but in any event the whole plan of attack that the police created before they even approached the matter occurred a cop i had a half a block away in a parking lot and then you know it was all kind of orchestrated simultaneously that hartwell would come up upon them on foot while the rest of the officer said to remember and then he called them around the same time he was talking to  it's not a fact that is dispositive but it can be that it can even looked at in determining the mood of the situation and how a reasonable person would interpret the officer's actions if they you know subjectively ran in there you know with that intent in mind it could affect the way a reasonable person would interpret their conduct and so for that reason i think that it is important to