i don't think that either side disputes that there were questions asked and the questions tended to incriminate the defendant and therefore it was you just continued on in the truck it would have gotten to the other side of the trail that was on the other side of the  is stopped on a roadway for example for speeding and they're confronted almost immediately with evidence that they have committed some kind of traffic infraction which is the same as what happened here when the officers the two uniformed officers approached the defendant and his you're parked illegally so what does a reasonable person then understand the encounter to entail certainly they don't expect that they're going to be arrested and handcuffed and dragged down to the police station for having parked illegally witness to took the witness stand said it was a friendly encounter there was there was no command and there was no drawing of weapons and the officer who testified said he was explaining to the individuals at the scene the defendant who was surrounded by his friends during the encounter not isolated and and just surrounded by two law enforcement officers the officers were informing them of this the situation and how it really impacted wildlife to be parking in that area so it was a friendly educational encounter right and i think what they all understood was that they had the officers were there telling them about how they shouldn't park there and that was the testimony that was elicited from the defendant's own friend that was there with him the defendant didn't testify at the suppression hearing but the question is what a reasonable person having been informed by law enforcement that you can't park in this particular area expect that you're going to be detained and probably arrested and taken down to the police station in those circumstances just don't exist in this case and therefore this situation had in front of him in regards to judge fletcher's question about clear and convincing error of how a judge would view the facts and events that the government doesn't even pass up to in this particular case they never allege the judge did anything wrong with the facts meaning why are we here if judge they didn't do anything wrong he was the one of the trauma nor the facts but judge share also had in front of them as you the way we read your rules we thought you didn't want the video but we did send a picture from the video to the court that there is a video of the judge she had and it's a part of the evidence of this case i wouldn't i can provide it but judge shay saw how remote this location was it doesn't make any difference to say that as much as the government does well these people could walk back to town they were out in the middle of nowhere honorable court is distinguished from the facts that judge shay had in front of him in berkeley or those people on a public highway and even talk about that in the burka murder station of people passing by to see what is going on between the police and the individual also one of person in the state of washington where this event occurred it stopped for speeding as in the rest of the united states it's a civil infraction it's not even a crime the young trevor and his friends there were in a very remote location if you would yell for help no one would hear you know traffic goes by there that the paths that you drive on cannot be called roads because they're just sand the trails the area of this public with the safety and i talk about that the safety of being in public versus these young people all teenagers two young men and two very young women cousins of trevor and and high school buddy of trevor they're out in a very isolated very unprotected area there is no public to see what is going on between the police and the first thing that the police do believe us officer pelican or the one that is in training the judge they refer to the one that was the next issue is that the police officer separates according to the facts and when you that you have in front of you an excerpt of record that you have in front of you the police officer separated the group into two separate groups there were two police officers and one of the police officers went to trevor's rig which was open now he's already told trevor of one criminal violation and the second thing he does is asked who is this box these and it was a cartridge box the testimony also shows the astronaut or looked at me look inside of it to see whether it was used for some other purpose so we don't know what was in the box and it wasn't in front of judge say the next question was discovered by the admission then the problem called to make the arrest but at what point is the court willing to allow all of these little death by a thousand cuts before all of a sudden we say oh well the miranda rights should have been given the officer ordered trevor to retrieve the gun because the officer couldn't find it in his rig but it wasn't visible and all of a sudden we have a search by an officer going to  without a search warrant without benefit of miranda limited i thought you said something to me retrieve the weapon he did he was ordered by the officer to retrieve the weapon without benefit of sank with the miranda benefits that maybe mr st germain  you should be quiet now and that's what our constitution requires and that's what i asked this court to find if there are in the camp if if he had arrested him at that point well of course trevor wasn't free to go so we argue that he was arrested at hayden case and in the i don't know how to pronounce the name for iran press i may be mispronouncing it but those five things just real quickly in the short remaining time are the language the language used to summon the individual the extent to which the defendant is confronted with evidence of guilt who's twenty two's is there a gun in there it's illegal to be parked on the mud flats the physical surroundings of the interrogation clearly if the court looks at the video this is a very remote situation we have two young people who can easily be intimidated because of the room not remoteness the duration of the detention of the government once the court to believe that this was just a short of a little conversation reason it's illegal because of nesting birds and and on that wasn't took some time my times i'd like to finish this if you look at the five factors in hayden and prayers i believe that