the next case on for argument is united states reeses serrano just read we ready good morning everybody jim brandon i represent mr serrano i do so along with lisa scolari mr serrano had a suppression hearing preceding his trial which was by stipulation and then he was sentenced this is now the appeal the argument presented today is whether evidence the gun that was recovered from the woman he was with should be suppressed and whether his statements at the precinct house should also be suppressed i know briefly some law which i know is very familiar to the court but an investigative stop requires at least a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity it cannot be based on a mere hunch an anonymous tip does not provide a basis for an investigative stop unless it is suitably corroborated and exhibits sufficient indicia of a liability now isn't one question here whether there was a stop because go and then they went to the arrest as soon as the gun was found in his girlfriend's purse show that there was no he was free to leave up to that point would be that would be the argument would be the government's argument my argument on the other hand is that that's not so when he when the police arrived at the scene when mr serrano first these police there are several cars that arrive at once he's confronted immediately by at least two officers then there is the commanding officer if you will padilla or pedia who instructs santiago to go up to mr serrano in to interrupt the questioning that's happening at that time and make sure to hold him and not let him go until such time as this investigation is completed i would say to you at that time he has been held even mr even santiago the detective who testified in the case said that serrano was not free to leave mr serrano also said he didn't feel free to leave i think it's sort of the the judge's the lower court's decision flies in the face of reality when you're confronted by several police cars and they're interviewing you and at least i don't know if mr serrano heard it or not but one officer tells the other do not let him go i think the circumstances suggest that he has been stopped for purposes of terry corroboration no that went along with the anonymous tip well there was some limited corroboration so the tip was that there are two people at this particular address a woman a man and the clothes that they were wearing and their proximate age that stuff was confirmed by the officers when they get there but not the particulars as to criminality which the tip had provided that the man has been suspected or charged with a homicide and that the woman is carrying a gun there was nothing at the scene that would suggest that mr serrano had killed somebody recently there was no blood there was nothing like that and the gun later found in the purse between his colognes legs didn't show evidence just to look at it in the plain view that there was a gun inside so while there is some very limited corroboration as to people standing on the corner that doesn't corroborate any of the allege but he was stopped before the police learned all that as to the high crime area i think almost every place in the bronx or maybe manhattan could be deemed a high crime area but with regard to the other facts that you've alleged to fidgeting that he didn't have identification all that in my opinion followed the stop and cannot be used to justify the stop i'm sorry i don't know the point at which they said holder is a curse to where he had when he produced about the standing issue because i know that the record was a bit murky in this regard so ultimately it is mr serrano in my view of the record that on balance given the totality of the circumstances he he made out legitimate expectation of privacy i note however that there were there was some flip flop so with regard to the affidavit that he filed requesting the suppression hearing he referred to the person as the purse not his purse he referred to the gun as a gun not his gun and he also mentioned specifically he referred to the purse as christina's purse so that would be his girlfriend's purse none of  not abandon it and i don't think the record shows that he abandoned the purse the police testified that when they arrived that he moved slightly away from ms cologne a total of twelve feet she is his girlfriend she was pregnant with his baby it appeared from the record that she would have had the authority to not let other people get inside the purse to see the gun so i think that on balance he does maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse and to the gun is unclear about that padilla was asked specifically whether his partner a female partner who was specifically interviewing cologne whether ms cologne granted consent he said he had no idea he didn't really hear what her answer was so the morning your honour's my name is rebecca donna leskie i'm an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york i represent the united states on appeal and i represented the government in the proceedings below the district court properly denied mr serr motion to suppress i'd like to address three of the points that defense counsel made in his argument first clearly established second circuit law united states v vargas as one example says that the officers and the defendant subjective intent does not matter it is an objective test and we don't look to whether the officer subjectively believed that the defendant was not free to leave in fact the record shows that it was a on consensual encounter the officers approach mr serrano asked him for his identification asked him why he was in the neighborhood plainly and objectives view of the facts would show that a person would feel free to leave the second defense counsel argued about the lack of corroboration for the nine one one call as judge duffy recognized there were six important facts that led to the reasonable suspicion so first the officers by the time the stop or the seizure of mr serrano occurred had corroborated a number of important details in the i'm one call not only the exact physical location and description of the male and female but the fact found and again mr serrano his behavior on the scene he was fidgeting looking around he was acting suspiciously so on a whole coupled with the fact that it was a high crime area at night judge duffy properly found that the officers had corroborated a number of key facts in the long call and based on their observations on the scene had reasonable suspicion to see it stopped mr serrano and third just to briefly respond to the standing point  serrano was not simply noncommittal in his statements before the district court he made statements under oath saying that the bag was his and saying that the bag was miss colognes his girlfriend's on this basis and based on judge duffy's observations of mr serrano in numerous hearings before him judge geoffrey properly did not credit mr serrano statements it is his burden to make out a reasonable expectation of privacy in the purse and he simply failed to do so and  kentucky is a supreme court case on point in terms of mr serrano not being able to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend's purse unless the court has any further questions the government will rest on its paper found that he he was claiming ownership of perjury there is certainly a set of facts by which a man can assert an expectation of privacy in the back of an acquaintance for instance if he makes out facts regarding their relationship how long he had known her the circumstances under which he bailed the purse to his girlfriend mr serrano simply failed to do that and instead he put forth a number of completely in opposite statements before the district court i'll just note that at the hearing itself mr serrano testified that the purse was his which was consistent with his post arrest statement to the police officers when he said that i'm a gun dealer i purchased the gun from somebody in virginia who was also a gun dealer i put the in the gun i put the gun in a t shirt and i put it in the purse there was nothing else in the purse it's not like there is no lipstick in there or something that would make it appear to be ms claus purse otherwise so and he testified if i didn't say this at the hearing that again it was his purse so while in his room and says to others things they wore i grant you that but i think on balance if we had to do a measurement test i think there's at least fifty one percent of his statements are it was  it was my purse as opposed to the other forty nine where he tried to flip flop under the totality i think that he carries that argument so that's why we have district judge all right sort that out ok that's great thank you thank you both we'll reserve decision