back and in this case the touching is up parallel except that instead of being with human hands it is a car or police cruiser touching the  bumper of the car of mr going sallis who stopped and then attempted to retreat in fact in ca much of it notes that even an codefendant the police believed had had distributed was a drug distributor and the morning of this incident had returned he has one point in the decision the judge suggests that the officers before the blockade as you describe it they already have obtained  were requested was all the and in the parallel time that the police were planning the details of this stop the actual physical search warrants in my recollection i rived after the the seizure and that's that's what they're searching that's correct so that if they then see these two individuals emerging from that residence according to the vehicle why doesn't that indicate that the and so what they had a hold that would have been on they've lost track of him they saw leader appears to be mr gonzalez but they didn't know who he was at the time together from the heard an unknown male who seems to be interested in drugs the same telephone call up here seems to be meeting up at legacy place but your responding to judge lopez by saying well maybe they had reasonable suspicion about here but there wasn't enough evidence to connect guns all eyes to provide reasonable suspicion later you make the argument in your brief for either a carry stop or for a seizure and sad sad choice it's essentially with if if there was probable cause to arrest me but not consolidates and if the pumping of the car is in a raft is the idea that it's clear an shouldn't hold if in fact this court determined that the suppression motion should have been allowed and that information had not communion to the trial the fact that we meaning evidence  gonzalez then i think the trial testimony looks very different thank you thank you your honor sir attorney please or you should mute your camera at this time states if i could start just by clarifying response to judge of this question special agent has testified that he obtained a search warrants of approximately a half an hour before  the defended and mr me here were taken into custody and you can find that testimony on page forty four of the appendix the district court of this case did not aaron denying the motion to suppress and let me go t flee whether that's a seizure for purposes of the th amendment given that that that's pending in the supreme court and again given the parties agreement this court can simply assume without deciding the issue as it did for example  when the question of whether johnson applied to the guidelines was rights but we've we've explained in our brief why we think that this was a physical force as opposed to a show of the wordy seizure and unlike show of authority d seizures submission is not required for a physical force seizure so the fact that the defendant fell it is relevant maybe relevant to other issues under the summarize the key facts the agents believed that meant he was engaging in drug correct transactions with his brother and sent a low and mexico they had information that he purchased through  chrysler sebring and had an electronic or a secret compartment installed in the chrysler sebring g p s device says were placed on a sebring there after intercepted multiple calls jersey and back to thirty two shot street in west roxbury where the ages believe which the agents believe was being used as a stash house then during the day on november th there were multiple intercepted conversations between mr makiya and the defendant about meeting up to engage in what the agent suspected would be a drug transaction they agreed to me at the legacy place mall and ultimately agreed to meet in two separate vehicles and then they would drive away in one vehicle that's exactly what the agents and the officers observed they observed mr miller he arrived at the mall meet with an individual later identified as the defendant they walked around the vault and then got into the defendant's toyota sienna and drove away the agents lost track of the sienna went to thirty two shot street where they observed  grimm is the key to this narrative the step where you said the agents believed that they were meeting up to do a drug deal in other words that all we had was evidence that they were meeting up gonzales prior to them being in the car could be understood to have been interactions which were predicate to them doing a drug deal correct ok yes i would agree and i wou so working backwards so the district court found that there was a seizure but there wasn't an arrest until he got out of the car he fled he resisted arrest and i put handcuffs on him so what is the government's position on why the conclusion of the district court as to when the arrest took place which would require probable cause what's the position on why baths the way one should view this rather than arrest occurs at the point of seizure evidence to support probable cause that is an addition to the evidence that would have justified the seizure at the vehicle well the additional evidence judge learns is that after peacefully remove the vehicle but the defendant struggled violently when they tried to remove him from the vehicle eventually i think with the testimony was four agents had to subdue him and at that point they clearly had grounds to arrest him for resisting arrest under massachusetts law or possibly even assault battery on a police officer can i just it's not if i'm following since the key you bet i appreciate the the candor in the brief about how you see the caesar issue but in and in addressing the question of the level of suspicion or probable cause that the government had and just go back to that thing it turns a lot on how they interpret the interaction between he and solace prior to the bumping of the car and i guess if the interactions could be interpreted as reasonably predicate to a drug deal then it just seems a little hard to me to see how it could be enough for reasonable suspicion but not for probable cause and seems a little bit on off in other words if you thought observing them they were about to do a drug deal given what you had evidence about nicaea then it would seem like yeah probably because if it's not enough to think they were doing a predicate drug deal then you start to wonder why they would even be reasonable entirely consistent yes no no that's not what i'm saying is what i'm saying is that so it just seems like the case problem is going to be pretty strong that whereas if their actions were not consist we concluded from the record you couldn't interpret those actions of showing to the court need because this wasn't a factor at rest i don't think the court needs to decide whether there was probable cause at that time and only needs to decide whether there was reasonable suspicion so i think you know it well i this case there was ample reasonable suspicion and secondarily as we noted in our brief camacho action taken by the officer he saw what he thought up thought was a bold and the defendant's ways reached out to tap it and in fact did tap at the defendant knocked away his arm and then ran away into the station district or through in that case where that the gun was discovered prior to any intervening acts by the defendant and that's totally different from this case in which the drugs were found after the intervening actions taken by the defendant so for both of those reasons camacho is distinguishable from this case very very quickly the transaction they agreed to may meet at the legacy place mall get them i think initially their idea was that they do the transaction at the legacy place mall but then they agreed that they'd meet two  leave in one car and then after engaging in the tourists out transaction go back to the legacy place mall where the defendant would drop mr may he off the actions that the agents subsequently observed is entirely consistent with that they observed mr may he arrived at the ball they had never heard or seen specifically of mr gonzalez before but then they see m least they arrive at thirty two dollars shots three go inside for approximately half an hour and then return to the toyota sienna and drive off the agents reasonably believe the day that after engaging in the drug drug thank you thank you thank you council attorney quinlivan and attorney glaser may disconnect from the meeting at this time