but we'll hear from you by what i mean by clear eyes watch them for what really occurred for what the tapes accurately recorded occurred that day without being affected by any findings made because i think if you see you them that way you have the most accurate depiction of what did occur are you suggesting that our review is not clearly erroneous no i'm suggesting it is it absolutely is and i don't this is not a legal case in the sense that there's no dispute about the law here it's pretty clearly it's a terry stop and the question of law is reviewed the novo and it's the questions of facts that are reviewed for determine whether they're clearly erroneous and interesting i think both sides quote the blatant case which says that it is only if there is objective evidence documentary or ject of evidence that contradicts the factual findings made is there clearer and i  you the most objective evidence in this case is what was recorded on the cameras and that is what shows with all due respect to the trial court that the findings made were clearly erroneous and i don't say you can find anything objective than those tapes nobody's nobody's quarreling that they were doctored in any way or that they were recorded or anything that they aren't accurate and i think if you look at those tapes what you'll see and the most there's only and forty seconds of each ones that matter but what you'll see is when banking's car is stopped officer visual is standing towards the rear passenger door and there's a conversation between tyson's and visual i'm sorry tyson's and bankets and during that conversation some back and forth about getting out of there but as soon as banking's gets out of the car he had been trying to hand his identification to tyson and as soon as he gets on the car he drops it it bends down and picks it up and you have the exact angle that officer the visual saw from that point forward and that angle is of mr banking's back there is absolutely no view once bank in stands out of the front of his jacket and there's only the claim justification for this here is that vigil says he saw a sagging of the fun cockpit and a bulging of the front pocket there's another exhibit one of the exhibits that's in the record for us to review is vigils vigils body cam itself correct what i'm talking about end in what that shows is that he immediately goes for the pocket he doesn't frisk you know him around the waist or starting at the ankles or lord of the shoulders or anything else he goes right for the pocket and basically says you know there it is but that's what i'm going to ask you i'm going to say so isn't isn't that pretty compelling evidence that he went straight for that because he saw something there in so it doesn't really contradict the district court's factual finding if it were true you'd be right but i suggest to you that the tape contradicts that finding to take it doesn't show him go straight for that pocket not at all not at all what you will see he's looking videos looking at a bank in the back t entire time until banking this told us that back at that point visual grabs banking's right on with both both of his hands and that's when i was in the point being that he could not have seen any nd prior to that the right arm because the right arm is next to the right pocket and a gun is in the right pocket now he grabs the right on because that's what's closest to him and he's helping turn around and as he does that so i'm ok and that's why i'm asking you to please go back and look at the stakes and then he takes it in the corner and there's nothing in the left pocket he takes his hand across the him of the jacket it seems that he's probably trying to fuel the waste and then he gets the right pocket nd now he denies it for the exact reason that you said but if you and that's why i'm begging you to please look at those tapes carefully because that is what occur and that is the biggest tell in this case that what he did was acted on a hunch he reaches for the left pocket taps and then comes across the body wraps the right pocket that's when he feels firearm that's also corroborated to a lesser extent by the exhibits two and three which are different angles of the same thing but you cannot see sense clearly as you can exhibit one and judge wilkins you pointed right at the critical point in that case front right side of his coat which was sagging notice play lower than the last side of this code throughout the course of the traffic stop nd that appellant displayed an initial reluctance to exit the lawfully stopped car it was approximately twenty eight seconds from the point in time when officer tyson st asked him to stop the car after tyson had to repeat his request that appellant step out of the car seven different times before  from my friend's argument st the district court didn't make findings about the exact claim that appellant is now seeking to revive on appeal which was the manner of the frisk on  camera captures the exact same view as observational had and i would also note that this court's clear air test requires not only that it doesn't just look at video footage alone it doesn't look a care with respect to reasonable suspicion i mean this case doesn't have some of the same factors an up or other cases finding reasonable suspicion you know the search was during daytime it was in a high crime area  you know the suspect wasn't necessarily a basis of how did those factors fit into a finding of reasonable suspicion so as your honor if it were reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than even probable cause and there isn't any it slips out of the circumstances fast and there aren't you know boxes that need to be checked off and every single case here with the governments ar that's implied and even stated in the pounce brief is how do we know that it wasn't something else how do we know that it wasn't his case well if you take a look at the body worn camera footage of how it has his well in his hand his cell phone in his hand and then lanyard coming out of the left hand pocket which i think it's a reasonable conclusion to understand that it's probably he's on the end of that when you're despite all the things that you would normally look for in such circumstances  factors which adds weight to that key observation are what pushed this over the edge and make it a case where there's reasonable articulable suspicion so just as you know there it's not there was a testimony that was a high crime area it was at five pm at night but there are additional factors that add to the psyche of the jacket there and this is suspicious for someone to not want to get out of their vehicle if they're a passenger in they haven't done potential innocent explanation but that's not what this court's review it is i'm this court is whether this court's review looks at whether a given object of circumstances were consistent with suspicious reason so there was an hour just citing the white case that's it i said there is white there's also johnson sorry united states versus johnson which was the th circuit case now and what else do you seem to suggest as a waltham authority in the d c circuit for that point mineral upton's to get out of a vehicle seems to be neither here or there most of us would be reluctant to get out of the vehicle and no one sitting around waiting to be invited by the police to get out of the vehicles  the officer to be thinking something here might be right and it's not just i guess the reluctance here is noticeable i've repeated the yes and i've noted the extent of it the fact that officer things like the fact that the code is unseasonable and set up to be noticing things like the fact that a pal is taking a step to step backwards to be on guard for the fact that his right arm is dropping down from the pocket that's already creating a stag it's not any one of these factors together it's the totality of them and a traffic stop where as this court has been cautious and solicitous of the fact that traffic stops really don't change this court's legal determination about whether circumstances are suspicious or acts of suspicious i'm not you know i read the argument in the brief i'm still not sure i understand nor do i understand what the st circuit meant to say about that if the officer doesn't notice something and doesn't draw any inference as salt from it we can avoid that by saying well a reasonable  whereas here after vigil specifically testified about the state step back as being one of the things that gave him pause i'm so there they're just different in terms of the evidence that was in the record and i have the right as is just a case about there not being evidence in the record that i gave foundation to the district courts when if there are no further questions i ask that step back of played a factor none of those factored into the officers evaluation that there was a basis to have reasonable suspicion the officer gave two distinct facts one was the sagging frisbee where the only thing that was cited was a ball which in the jacket if factually yes that would be but our position here is the tape contradicts whether or not the officer could have seen that and it based on the angles and so also so the only way you win is if we find that to be clearly erroneous yes factual that would be you would have to find that clearly erroneous and i suggest based on the angle of the camera which is as as counsel pointed out it's about twelve inches beneath the officers eyes it records the exact angle that brock visual would have been looking at and seen the defendant and from that perspective you said that's the whole thing and the whole thing was not raised before us was raised in the trial court trial court ruled against you you did not reraise it well i see big difference sense that it was raised because our whole point was he could not have seen the bold and and oh no no your argument is i heard you your argument was and i listened carefully by your exhibit one and what you'll see is the officer reaching across to the right side and as if i'm trying there and then i'm coming across till i get to the left side that was raised in the district court you did not raise that i would like to believe i believe it was raised by implication by saying he could not have seen what he claimed to see and in retrospect i probably should have included that argument as well into the brief but i don't think it undermines it because what you're looking at is the taped on is the tape recording of what the officer claims and so if the tape contradicts his claim that he went to the pocket st then the exhibit itself contradicts this statement and that's what i'm suggesting is it's clear error because the tape contradicts the statement of the officer and the deference accorded the officers recantation recounting of the event should not have been given because he could not have seen that which he claims to have seen based on that and the tapes establish that the other one is the reaching is it in retrospect obvious that should have been included but i don't think it's a new issue raised the st time on i or you meant i don't think that's a fair characterization