government and the district court there was reasonable suspicion to believe that mr hernandez was somehow connected to the criminal activity reported by the anonymous tipster namely that somebody inside the room for forty three of going to go tell was threatening somebody basis for it first of all the uncorroborated kip which had very little almost no detail was in the suspicion to provide sufficient five suspicion there was actually criminal activity room for forty three but even if we assume that's true why wouldn't you say there wasn't enough to provide reasonable suspicion why not well i think it's because there was no details no verifiable details that the officers could or didn't check once they got there  and so i think that for example if the officers had chosen to bust through the door on the grounds of this gives us reasons of sr for an exit in circumstances search i think that that would be a very questionable case but the court doesn't have to spend a lot of time on that because the separate question is whether there was any particular suspects that could be identified in the resources fashion standard and here what's key about the nine hundred and eleven caller is that person did not describe the suspect at all not by race not by gender not by clothing no nothing so even if there's reason to believe that somebody was inside room for forty three dollars with a gun there's no basis to suspect anybody in particular who's not in that room i thought maybe i misremembering but i thought that actually check and didn't see anybody in a room for forty three they're not going to door nobody answered ok that's right and this is so so wouldn't they then be able to at least make an assumption that if somebody called and said there was somebody with a gun there they might still be in the local facinelli no i think that would be more of a hunch and i wouldn't explain little bit more about the facts so the the way it looks like it happened they seize the three initial men before they knock out a room for forty dollars they knock on route forty four dollars and well you're not representing them but would you say that the that that was also a violation of their th yes definitely because again there's no reason to believe that they are the suspect because we don't know anything about the suspect we don't know what their ages the races their gender so there's no reason to show up on the th floor and keep in mind to something the government ignored that said they were found around the room for forty three hopefully by now the court has had time to look at those videos in you'll see it's actually quite a and but in this case hernandez was designed to stand up walking up the stairs look at the officer the officer saw him kind of notice him and then kind of turns back and go back downstairs white why in this circumstance where they're looking for at least a tip that there was a someone with a gun in that city why wouldn't that be enough to raise suspicion about hernandez's action with regard to the specific stairwell the there's multiple stairwells one of them is very close room for forty three dollars he's not in that one he's around a corner down a long hallway in a different stairwell all we know from off from go this observation is he's walking up the stairwell sees the officers decide to turn around we don't know whether he intended to stop on the th floor if he did which of the many many rooms he was planning to go to whether he was intending to go to one of the higher floors in one of the many many rooms up there or so to say that just seeing him there in that moment forces well i don't think that the position is just seen them that they're in the moment but that wherever he was intending to go he got up there saw the officers realize something was going on did not want to be there and when you know walk back down i just wonder i mean you put in a lot of weight on what the officer should be able to internalize and in a split moment when you know they're responding to a tip that there's a there's a gun i mean that the seems like a reasonable response of police need big maintain this safety and the question is whether you that was enough reasonable suspicion to detain him when he recognized that he did it and again there's a whole set of circumstances and this is what i want to emphasize with your honor's point as we talk about the connection drew for forty three you'll see a lot of that in the government's briefs and even in the district court order look very closely off from an officer mendoza declaration he doesn't make that connection if you read his declaration it's we're responding this call we're there i see him do this thing in the hallway i immediately become suspicious and his theory is because based on my prior practice these gang members will always just come up to us and chit chat unless they have something to hide so since he turned around i assumed he had a gun or or drugs he never says and i thought he was might be the guy who has had a room the room for forty three well so you know everything you just said does seem to support reasonable suspicion that there was something odd going on and you had a circumstance we had to maintain you know security well not not not under this court case law because if we look at what he actually said we have st he says the decision to turn around and even in the case of brown which we discussed several twenty a j letters court very recently said even somebody who runs away isn't doesn't make so called flight a relatively strong reason the suspicion factor here we have somebody walking away going about his business as the supreme court in this court tells us people allowed to do rather than voluntarily an act of the police and and moreover as brown recognized you can't ignore the effect of race in the situation here's a like young latino man walking up the stairs seeing a bunch of officers handcuffing him for seeing a bunch of other latino men and wisely said you know what i'll go another way and that doesn't provide reasonable that it was a reasonable stop reasonable to detain him is there a separate analysis we need to do about the reasonable miss of whether he should of whether the officer should frisk him to find out whether he had a weapon yes yes there has to be a question whether he's presently armed and dangerous and so that goes back to kind of you have to look at what is the theory you're finding reasonable suspicion on off from indows again he wasn't connecting him to room four hundred and forty three he was saying he might have guns he might have drugs so well let's say it might have drugs if you have drugs that's not reasonable to it's not reasonable to believe that he's armed or dangerous i see if you want to reserve please the court britney harris for the united states this court should affirm the district court's decision denying defendant's motion to suppress because officer mendoza had ample reasonable suspicion to briefly stop and detain defendant that after receiving a nine hundred and eleven call that someone was threatening people with a quote that handgun and room for forty three of the olympic hotel the officers arrived on scene and they detained three individuals who were immediately record shows that room for twenty one is directly across the narrow hallway and the entryway of room for forty three and i want to point your honour's to e r ninety four five colin  eight colin fifty five in that frame your honour's you'll see that room for twenty one is on the left side of the frame and roof or forty three the entry way to room four hundred and forty three is on the right side of that frame it's a very narrow hallway you'll see an officer whose back is to room for twenty one and he's pointing his firearm to room four hundred and forty three where they're trying to make the knocking and and request for the occupants your room for seventeen the record actually shows that he likely was also in your room for twenty one and that is  excuse me that is that you are ninety two at five colin seven colin twenty five the officers who were right around room for twenty one report that they were able to detain two of them but that the rd one fled near the other officers and he fled in your room for seventeen which is the room right in front of the open stairwell where defendant was coming up from that individual and the officers refer to him is by his gang moniker baby  that's the individual that officer mendoza sees being detained right when he comes up the th floor stairwell that's the individual that officer mendoza recognized to be a crazy writers gang member  and so when officer mendoza sees defendant about thirty seconds after the officers had knocked at room four hundred and forty three and no one answered he sees defendant coming right up that same stair wall right in front of room for seventeen makes eye contact with defendant defendant gives the surprised look and at that point officer mendoza recognised him he knew that that was someone that he encountered just a few months prior he knew that he was on probation that he had search conditions that he was a member of the same gang as the individual who was detained right in front of officer mendoza when he st entered the th floor he knew that he had been with gang since he was eight years old he knew that his moniker was youngster and when they made eye contact with one another and after defendant gave his surprised look he immediately you turned and went back down the stairwell all of that combined gives rise to reasonable suspicion that defendant could have been this potential shooter as identified in the nine hundred and eleven call let's assume that he did not act as he did that encounter he comes up he sees there are police on the floor and he walks toward them can you say with a straight face that they wouldn't have done to him exactly what they did the other three that the officers would not have they would have frist no i mean you're saying oh because he had this con this conduct that that made him subject to suspicion but what do you think he might have  laid that suspicion in the eyes of the officers your honor i think that that there is reasonable suspicion even if diff even if defendant didn't make the u turn and a vase of moving and attempt to flee the situation i think that only adds to the suspicion in this case i think the fact that he was detained or he was found in the stairwell very close to room for forty three dollars that he was connected to the three individuals who were who were right outside of room for forty three dollars which is the location that the caller reported and those that record tell us that he was connected other than that they were gang people they were members of the same gang you're on are right but that doesn't mean they necessarily were in cahoots that evening that's correct your honor and i think also it's important for this court to keep in mind the nature of this nine  this is an emergency situation this is someone calling reporting violence in a public hotel and that by its very nature takes this case out of some cases that defense cited like j l like brown and like jones the officers are obliged to fully investigate and nine hundred and eleven call of this nature especially in today's age with mass shootings in public places that officer had to i think the law is doesn't mean that the officers couldn't have investigated or continued to investigate them fact found out that the three men that they stopped were not armed and dangerous they find this man hernandez they can approach him they can talk to him but it seems to me that under the law they don't unless they have some reason that we can articulate that he's armed and dangerous they have no right to frisk him at least i have two responses to that your honor number  one the officers who were detaining the three individuals hadn't yet finished their investigation i don't know that they had yet determined that those three individuals did not have firearms on them so there are reasonable suspicion had not been allowed at that defendant you turning after seeing officer mendoza i think the totality of those circumstances give reasonable suspicion for officer mendoza to briefly stop detain and frisk defendant and  let me ask you this is i understand this record this issue was actually presented to the district court in a way because what i thought the one of the arguments in the district court was that they were just grabbing people and that the district court had made findings that this particular stop was because of what the officer new in understood from h is about this particular person so it rejected the idea that they were just grabbing people without any reason to suspect them that is absolutely correct your honor and the district court also credited officer mendoza's testimony he found him credible he found his observations to be reasonable so it wasn't just the emergency nature of the nine hundred and eleven call it was also coupled with officer mendoza's observations of defendant and then the district court went through the the reasons that he had for stopping doing it terry stop for this person but i guess where i am where i am asking is then the district court said once he stopped him he had the authority to pat him down for weapons why is that so your honor i few things number one the nature of the nine hundred and eleven call reported that someone was threatening with a gun so i think that that is a very large part in giving reasonable suspicion that that defendant might be armed and dangerous then your position that anyone that they stopped and detained they inherently had a right to or a reasonable suspicion to frisk them as well if your any their face if if they had reasonable suspicion to think that person was connected to the night of the contents of the nine hundred and eleven call it might have been a different situation had they stopped and frisked someone on the nd floor in the lobby of the hotel  but that's not your honor doesn't have to go that far here reasonableness doesn't turn on the availability of other intrusive investigatory techniques the officers this was this was a very dangerous situation there that you have  and also on defendant's actions that night upon seeing officer mendoza defendant made an immediate u turn and abandoned his destination and fled back out in the  open stairwell and officer mendoza knew this person he knew that he was on probation with search conditions and so that is why it heightened officer mendoza's reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous he didn't have any record of having use firearms so it was in the band was a fairly minor crime in his background that is correct it was a prior conviction for vandalism but he was on formal probation for that ok without any further questions we understand very well thank you thank you unless the court has any particular questions wants me to address i'd like to make two points one is co counsels concession that well even to put the what happened in the stairwell aside if you just walk up and approach the officers the same thing would have happened to him this to anybody else i think that kind of makes our case for us because we go back again to the definition of reason suspicion in objective particularized basis to believe the particular person stop it's guilty of something so what she's saying is ok is that we have an allegation that someplace over here wolf room for forty three dollars something bad went on and we're just going to round up the usual suspects and hope that mean that's true although i will say in a footnote he said what happened to those other three men was perfectly fine but you're right there was additional facts but those additional facts were the so called headlong flight which after brown i think is completely eliminated away and i think that that factor is so important because again if if even that constitutes something suspicious what does a young man have to do in that situation to not engage with the police and not be then