whether probable cause was a stablished to allow the officer to do a search and seizure on mr lewis's curtilage i don't want to reiterate everything that was in the brief but there are on line of  i do think that the motion was not drafted in a way that is is ideal for mr lewis but i do believe that his attorney raised the probable cause issue he did argue that  interaction was not legal and there wasn't even reasonable suspicion for that interaction nor will the curtilage would change the analysis if the argument had made a so wrong playing error was just going to say there was testimony about how far the officer was the feet in whatever the testimony was that mr lewis was in or in the side door of his house also there was testimony about anywhere where he was arrested he was and that he was like twenty feet from him within the yard and that mr lewis had been i believe he also said that he was in or in the into the side door and i believe it was the police officers testimony that establish there was a fence around around the back officers testimony the fluid nature of him getting out of this cart approaching mr lewis and mr lewis coming somewhat back from the door that he enters into his house showed that it was  all pertaining to whether there was a seizure what your position is that given the standard that if it if the the seizure of the initial encounter was there a seizure officer got out and in earnest or lewis says you are whether or not that's considered curtilage and he said i need your identification and i think that's it that's a show of authority mr lewis was complying with that  it and the district court order cited facts both as to what mr lewis testified to and what the officer testified to some of that might be contradictory so it's somewhat difficult to sort out the facts but then the officer showed a further demonstration of authority by saying hey i might have a war for your arrest it was done in a rather casual manner by mr lewis was already complying with the request according to the officer and certainly didn't com not once he said he wore a but that would be to answer such columns question that would be how he showed further authority making this not a consensual encounter and by making it a seizure what would you do with the fact that he said he felt like he was able to lily his testament who didn't believe that you had the right to just walk away yes and i think that's why he ran so i take i have a little bit different take on that i understand he said yes i thought i could leave that's why that's why he ran away so i think that was there a seizure at that point or did the seizure come on the fans well a seizure definitely came when he was climbing the fence before that it's a much much closer question i think so that's why if the it if the see if this court wanted to focus on the seizure there were certainly a seizure when he was pulling him off the fence and at that time even if you take away the fact that he had to have you're not going to consider the curtilage issue if that's what the court chooses to do  and we don't have to establish probable cause it would just be reasonable suspicion for the seizure he was arresting him and he arrested him and put handcuffs on him before he even knew mr lewis had a gun so he was absolutely by then and at that point all the officer had was an arrest warrant for mr lewis's brother that was one fast and at that point he didn't know who it was for but it wasn't for mr lewis and the only other bit of information that would be reasonable suspicion because that's really all he has other than a warrant that doesn't belong to mr blewitt he doesn't know that he knows it's for lewis and he knows it's one o sufficiently individual was not think that close to facts but i would disagree that the officer testified that he did not know and the government included in its response to the motion initially that the admitted that the address he overheard when he was leaving the police briefing that morning that he had only associated that with the brother dania not my client mr lewis so he had never even associated mr l i don't think that anything about the warrant for a louis person could establish reasonable suspicion even in connection with him fully it's almost as if i mean in my mind i guess the best way to sta that the warrant provided nothing because it wasn't particular ised at all to mr lewis and the fact that he stated that he thought he could leave it any time and he was in his yard again whether or not it's considered  curtilage he felt like he could retreat from that questioning at that time so the only thing he did was flee and there's case law that says that alone isn't enough there may be a little bit more than solely fleeing because the officer believed he had a warrant but the warrant wasn't particular us to mr lewis at all and ultimately did not it wasn't addressed to mr l and it please the court ever made known to have the united states on your honors the courage issue and the problem calls as you were not raised in the district court and therefore this court does only review those on the plane error review additionally error for the district or not to take up that issue secondly as to the seizure question the district court correctly decided that there was no seizure at the initial encounter between officer townsend and the defended their the defendant fled prior to any possible seizure taking place and the officer had several facts within his knowledge at that time st he knew that there was a warrant for a loose individual he associated the address that he her will not warrant with a residence that he knew the defendant and his brother were associated with even though he had not  counter the defendant that address the city of sushi to the address with the defendant he knew that the warrant was for an assault on a family member any do that the defendant had a reputation as a neighborhood bully that had come about in the two months prior to this incident which all those factors together in light of the defendant's flight upon hearing that there may be a warrant for his arrest certainly gave the officer reasonable suspicion to engage in the yes i really have not very much to add unless in leicester further questions i would just say that the address associated with lewis i believe the testimony i mentioned earlier in my opening and i don't think i think the officer