case was extremely close very close that the state had a very good basis for finding that the defendant consented that nothing that the that the officer did was the least bit worse still and that it objective are the factors for what are reasonably objective we sought search find them to be and after the supreme court was taking a look at subjective indications that was the forgery is the defendant consenting to the search and it seems to me he was too cute and asking her but saying i'd like to search your car we can or when he gets a different answer he says how about saying is that a yes that i can search a car or words to that effect i mean i just it's hard for me to understand that the police officer was response then it's almost as if he is gaming the system to try to ensure that that's going to be up to might influence reasonably from the conduct of the defendant whether it's from something as opposed to ask that indicates the door is open ok yeah i suppose it would but i think you know in in technique or evidentiary terms that would be called a non responsive the answer  i follow you know getting the answer to the initial question which i don't know that he ever got well the officer said no i want to search the entire set of the entire poem and the officer said you know you he's using subjects judgment to reach that conclusion then he needs circumstances i think i've got enough to search the car because i've got something in the nature of a concern from  i think i'm saying the same thing just a statement in terms of i'm going to be so nice to you and so talkative and so non confrontational that i'm going to get you to follow me i back and change your mind and get back in that seat sit down paul back here at that point it's not he's not quite as laid back when there's a hesitation on the part of the defendant after he exits the vehicle don't come back here keep  talking about all of this is because the officer in my judgment explicitly shows not to ask questions for clarification purposes so he could say on the question right oh until you get a response a very it's the officer seems to me sure not to do that and you're right the biggest name sort of you know he's not answering directly console we open the door for and officer was concerned if you notice the officer was at the passenger side window he didn't want to get hit by hit by i mean traffic or traffic going by he was granted maybe he has subjective intention was let me see you know i won't follow up with that direct question but that doesn't matter what he subjectively was what i really intended or i didn't didn't intend to convey this at all well that mindset is immaterial what matters is how somebody would interpret that everything everything that the defendant did though indicate indicated that it was consenting and you also know ok the officer didn't tell him you can refuse him sam this guy's been around the block i mean officer didn't challenge him and say ok you know i know you're lying he doesn't become confrontational with these other also you've given up that lifestyle and even when the guy says you know there might be the overarching question in this case is what test or trial judge applied i would suggest that the overarching issue is whether the trial court's ruling was correct and this critic whether you apply an objective test or any test that's my position the legal issue in this case is simply this if you comply with an officer's order to leave your car to say constitute consent to search your car and i say this is not true but pain said to mr cooper well i'm going to have you step out of your car trooper payne testified that by that he was directed to get out of this car trooper payne testified that when he did get out of the car i took that as the consent so whether trooper payne is dancing all around the survey at the point is he never got consent no matter it didn't matter how hard you tried or how hard you tried to avoid it the state's position that you consent to a search of your car merely by complying with an order to get out i was simply untenable that promote people you have to if you want to be a good citizen not violate the law by not resisting arrest you have to surrender your fourth amendment rights and i just don't think that's true consent that's mere acquiescence with a police officers command the state is pointed to some comments made by mr cooper about offering to pop open and finally when and he's told it won't take long he says all right those are not consent either that's merely a acquiescence he had already been ordered out of his car so those statements simply put not constitute a consent at that point search was inevitable you know one of the big differences between this case and terry obviously is that why not the defendant terry started assuming the position the police officer kept saying  whether or not the judge applied the wrong test here he did not the state's making too much of the statement where the judge found the defendant testified here today that he never consented he never gave permission the state is acting as if that was the legal ruling although it was a fact finding but the whole context of that is the defendant testified here today that he never consented the burden then becomes the state's to prove that he did he said the judge is just saying that ruling that was simply a finding of fa stressing what is plainly a subjective factor the fact that mr cooper perhaps is an experienced individual when it comes to criminal justice system but that the court in this case didn't mention that and that's a classic example of so i i don't know exactly what i said the officer but it wasn't meant to imply consent and out with regard to whether or not it was subjective how with defendant's criminal history that's an objective fact because the officers knew about it if you had on his criminal history then i i would agree that you know later on now the problem when we find out how how how many