and proceeds to go to a casino at the texas station casino in las vegas it's a situation where i believe that there is a reasonable expectation unlocking his vehicle that he would have the right and privacy the  stopping him at that point in time or dealing with a situation of what they believe to either be a traffic stop on the part of one officer saying they made it illegal turn going into the casino or on the other side another op officer having told them on one occasion that he believed that there may have been a woman in the vehicle and that she possibly could have been assaulted although it's not clear based upon the fact that the vehicle has attended when those at the time of the officers actually make the stop however the off duty officers calling in this call apparently has the ability to see into the vehicle in making the observations and any of that is the situation during the stop of either traffic or for the possible domestic mr reid says that there is no one in the vehicle and i would submit that that's really what set the d called in for criminal history information he would have determined that your client was in fact a film he would have your honor and after around that point in time your client indicated there was a weapon in the car are our position in this case is that's were the question you should have stopped there with and went into the car unlocked the car and went into the vehicle arguably because they couldn't see in through these tinted windows although through th studied constitutional law an immediate look only upon learning the individual's name and determining that he was in fact a felon had called their car law professor to get guidance as to what to do  injured and what they were trying to do was apply the emergency doctrine for domestic violence that these types of situations could have found an individual who has the injury i'm just my questions are designed it wondering why worry about an emergency situation or officer safety if in fact the end of it you will properly define himself he was in fact a felon and admitted that there was a weapon in the car why wouldn't that he still had a reasonable expectation once he made it out of the cation it was thrown out on the hood and that they had a right to make some type of determination he was cooperate and there was an any need for further questioning and i was that was the argument that was made initially the deals with what you're talking about in terms of another level discovering that the question should be limited to the facts of what had taken place here we know the facts were either improper a left hand turn and then it turned into the casino which which was then brought up after the fact that they were trying to make a stop for domestic violence and i hurried out my impression is the way the questioning went was is there anyone in the car and the there was somebody in the vehicle whether there was a person that may have been injured and then the officer said that he went to his his further questioning of his standard questions is there a weapon in the vehicle and that that's the point in time traffic stop i would submit to the court that there was an expectation on the part of mr ricci based upon the fact that he got out of his car locked the door checked the door and was leave it at that point in time that the stop should not have or the se precludes the officer from asking that question because your client's not in custody at that time he's not compelled to respond once he says yes hiram's kind of on the table because i can't the officer asked the question because i point in time was it that in fact he was not going to be able to leave both officers were asked that during the suppression hearing whether in fact he would have been able to leave that point in time they both said that he would not have been able to leave at that point in time the court when i'm going to suppress based upon the facts of the statements that were being made the fact that he was in custody and i think there is a divergence between the magistrate's vision of what actually takes place in terms of the i would like to reserve whatever time i might have certainly thanks for your argument we'll hear from the united states at this time morning may please the court for an corals for united states in this case this record properly denied appellant motion to suppress the handgun recovered from his car because the police had both reasonable suspicion and probable cause appellant car and investigate whether he had battered the female the record evan it strongly supports that the police had reason to suspicion for the stop after all the police were responding to a domestic violence call this court has long recognized that domestic violence calls or inherently dangerous here an off duty police officer reported to the police that he saw appellant argue with the female point of being in her face and possibly fell for the police reasonably relied on this information as reliable and credible because it was being conveyed by an off duty police officer that once and once the police had to turn on the there was no one in the car or what justified the additional search danger victim right but the once once once i had obtained i looked in the car and on was that what justified the further search you know i think also there's officer safety involved because appellant admitted that he had a weapon in the car and again based on the suspicious nature of his conduct he still to pull over immediately once he did get out of this car he locked the car door and exactly verify the like the car door by pulling the door handle but i think even more importantly than that let's assume for sake of that point then subsequently they still could've recovered the weapon during the doctrine of and never will discover it because they certainly at that point recognize that opinion admitted that he wasn't fact the felon so it's zero point down the road whether it's that  appellant had admitted there was a gun in the car so there would have been an inventory search so there was dinner later i would say confidently the police would have recovered i think the problem is at the time when they entered the car they really didn't have probable cause and they had reasonable in fact violating about a law so accordingly they had probable cause to stop and that rendered the stop reasonable under the fourth the minute he made a left turn and had two lanes into which he could go and he chose battered a female and they did see him make this violation of that a lot and i think that's what's before the court respectfully regarding the line of questioning that may have been may have exceeded the scope of the justification of the stop this court's recent decision the united states versus mendez i would submit makes appellate argument moot as i don't imagine your honour's are aware in that case the court decided that the line of questioning need not be directly related to reason the current stuff as long as the questioning is not delayed or prolonging the encounter between the defendant and law enforcement wasn't there a motion to suppress granted here with regard to the to the responses you gave to the question subsequent questions yes or on a bike those aren't i have to make on it issue here and quite honestly those questions became aware i became aware of those questions during the suppression hearing and agree that they should have been suppressed because there's no question that the defendant wasn't custody at that point he'd been  i remember correctly the question that i believe that telling this trying to further suppress is the question that was made voluntarily without any real questions from the police when the appellant approached the officers he said yes he had a that warrants suppression the statement because in this case the line of questioning lasted no longer than one minute in fact the entire length of the traffic stop lasted no more than a couple of minutes i would submit that there is no way based on the looking inside the case your honor the appellant told the officers that the gun was in a black case and it turned out the gun was in the black yes that's right my question is the knowledge that there's a firearm enough to give them justification to look wherever they have to look to find that firearm i submit that if they could within the confines of the passenger compartment exceeding open until the passenger compartment of the car yes occurs here is a situation where there's a terminations made to go beyond what they really believe this is taking place here in terms of granted they may have had a right to go into the vehicle based upon the belief that someone might have been injured based upon the fact that another officer gave them information which they believe may have been correct it turned out not to be but what's important here is the card is locked they have over there they get into the car to see if there's any in time there are good duty bound to get a warrant at that point in time to try and find out the additional information ok perfect timing thank you both for your arguments the case just argued will be submitted for decision