following us air the background information of the some fourteen last one made it very precisely on the limited purpose of showing the inspectors frame of mind direct the court to page three eighty five of the excerpt of the record where the government is literally arguing to the jury that no more thefts occurred after mr platter was taken out of the facility which implie in connection with the operation of the postal authority when they hire postal clerks to work in the cellars is there any expressed or implied consent or regulation that permits the postal inspectors to make you physical i endeavor to find such an item i could not the record seems to indicate only that as a government employee they're subject to the fourth amendment constraints and there has to be reasonable suspicion i never saw that years ago that worked in the post with my discovery attempts we made a motion to use the high security camera room where the agents were able to use a multiplex video terminal to watch remedies if you start at the worst they don't they don't apply dismissal of the case would not apply just provocation of the attorney or the agency i think is too harsh frankly access to the agents with a court record it seems the least intrusive most reasonable way to return the parties to the status quo to the point where we were asked that sure in their view where the agents were willing to talk to me and they were willing to ask answer my questions that is you would find that you were not able to ask at trial when they were under oath well i may have been able to ask but it is not my habit at trial to dive into areas that apparently so agitated the united states that the way let's turn to the fourth amendment because that's the area i think i was most prejudiced and my client was searched for weapons at the time patted down for weapons at the time of the interview and in the  interrogation room where their office whatever it's to be called and in actuality i don't think there's a particular it doesn't strike me as unusual that they would want to pass somebody down but the question is not that they want to the question is is there any articula information that he would be armed and in fact the agent when i first asked him point blank about it he said i had no information no knowledge that this gentleman had a weapon or posed a danger but watering this down to a well if he's armed we would have a problem standard is a complete turnaround of the carry some rules now next point possibly possibly being what i suspected it was a possible on fellow i thought it could be the young fellow and then he says he took it out and later going back to it opens it up and he determines it is one of the salted  years search if you stand or fall on the reasonable suspicion that he was armed we don't have to get to whether the district court was correct in concluding that evidentiary significance was readily apparent if you didn't have the there was evidence that made it to show why this investigation started this investigation had begun because there were some narcotics lost as the lawsuits were reported to the postal inspectors and it's different than perhaps fifty only facility why do you need to go further i think that's mr finers point he doesn't have any objection to the initial explanation for why here but you did a lot more with that evidence than simply explain why the agents part it wasn't just this one particular loss there were other losses there were other employees working at the time of these wanted he had color chart color graphics he'd gone through are the basics and  did not intend to introduce those e mails we weren't provan up those prior lawsuits we had directed our inquiry as to mr blatter because of these prior lawsuits but we weren't we only charged one count and we weren't trying to say well this you know can you accomplish this with an interview so we met out at the postal facility which was a number of that's and at first we thought it was just going to be an inner you know about how the surveillance from works but mr fein wanted to use some of the we would ask them questions and you would get confused on who is who and in the declaration of splatter you know they spec in your outfit which inspector you want to the particular question and then it got worse there were yes or no questions or if there  and finally did the exam it is only in there when they're not in there in the cameras are off the monitors or off and wasn't if the janitor was privileged in some sort of secret information then why did you not get an opportunity to explain what happened judge is called back in the bench and you'll know in the record the postal inspectors that he didn't make his final decision so if he made his final decision from ten o five to ten thirty after listening to defense counsel's representation about what happened during the hearing and that accident record one sixty two lines twenty to twenty five so the postal inspectors the best part about the initial interview but it was after hearing what happened in court and the representation of defense attorneys that they made their final decision not to participate you know because my point is that i did conclude the initial interview because i felt it was unprofessional and not helpful but in terms of whether or not i  have the right to decide and once they decided they didn't want to tell them what caused their decision not to what the u s they interfering with the prosecutor's right to have access to witnesses and the judge has no myself and defense counsel had an opportunity to tell the judge what our recollection was the postal inspectors also had an opportunity to tell the judge no legal requirement that they have to be cross examined out to their recent bottom line is a witness  ohio is that reasonable or does the officer have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and can he articulate a reason to conduct a crackdown first for officer safety and what they've said what e it's possible that he's been involved in some thirteen or fourteen of these things there's no evidence that there's a gun involved or that he's letting these things with a big still lead or something else we don't have any other evidence that there's that there's a weapon involved we have evidence it's a very confrontational we're talking about armed robbery if we're talking about burglary or something else that involves a violent crime but this is this is that from a possible rope from the from a postal facility in which the guy had no idea that it was being set up it was an ordinary day  d officers pull a car of suspected gang members over late at night that the circumstances surrounding the stop the fact that there are four suspected gang members in the car all go to articulable facts for why the officer might have a reason to believe that the suspects may be armed but it seems to me the best you've got here is i'm about to conduct an interview in its tiny interview room that's going to become confrontational and if that happens then the union shop steward and the agents might be their risk of harm question is under terry versus ohio and it's progeny is that  past as we got to the testimony it wasn't clear that necessarily was found during a pat down the testimony as the judge goes on to say is that he stood out and when he turned around they could see it  you're using on a brief i believe i was using fourteen point something i can read well it may be that microsoft or somebody said it was fourteen points but you've got to take place fourteen points and that's exactly what their compliance with the rule requires