dictates that under these circumstances no offense was committed the second would be that the officer was not authorized under the circumstances to demand that mr haygood to back into his vehicle third that the demand that mr haygood get back into his vehicle was in violation of mr davis fourth amendment rights and finally that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr haygood had the requisite ments intent to commit the crime of obstructing a peace officer briefly  nearly all of the facts in this case are captured on the video which is the dash cam on the officers vehicle on september fourteenth two thousand and twelve the officer allegedly heard that mr haygood adding loud muffler the officer turned around and sped up in an attempt to try to catch up with mr haygood by the time the the officer the deputy caught up with mr haygood mr haye goods vehicle was lawfully parked in the private driveway the vehicle was locked mr haygood was outside of the vehicle and walking towards the front of the residence of place where the vehicle in ben had been parked the deputy said come back here mr haygood comply the deputy seizure but i think that the the i think miranda largely the difference between a seizure would be the difference between a seizure and arrest if he's merely if he's seizure faeces detain for the purposes of dealing with a traffic stop miranda is not necessarily necessary and if he is arrested that randall would be would be necessary however either way under these sets of circumstances the officer tells the defendant go back to your car and mr haygood actually did go back to his be arrested then under those circumstances we have the a factual scenario very very close to harare and that given all of that there would not have than an appropriate conviction for  obstructing now the state are using its brief that what we're looking at here is a situation in which after mr haygood refused to go back into his vehicle after he said it was locked and that he wasn't going back into his vehicle crime of t heard i believe that that argument does fail simply because of the fact that the weddings and both would have committed the offense of obstructing at the point which they originally told the officer no i'm not doing that i believe that are already at weddings and stand for a different proposition which is to look at the totality of the circumstances everything that's all that's going on here and what you have in this specific case from when the deputy first told mr higley the inside problem of the officer would have any situation that was or that arose was completely dispelled by mr haygood agreement to put his hands behind his back that will point out that the officer in this case clearly than hi ability to be able to even order him to go back into the vehicle under the circumstances in which the seizure or the interaction begins with mr haygood is outside the vehicle now i believe that this is largely an issue of first impression there have been cases  similar points but not where the defendants on private property outside of his vehicle and what we have here is merely an officer who believe he has subjective belief that this is a traffic stop and as the result he can order mr a good to go back into his vehicle mr ha people versus feel good bird talk about this issue they discussed the fact that you think that the officer can't order an individual to do something that the officer can self could not do in other words i open a locked door enter that locked door then we have a situation in which the it's probable cause she just smell of marijuana the officer can just claim that he's not marijuana and that's probable cause to be able to search search the vehicle taking that into consideration the very opening of the door gives the officer access th would not have here and in addition i believe that c of champagne and torres and william burns direct this court to look at whether the officer himself to do what he is trying to accomplish could the officer no i'm saying that under the circumstances in which the defendant is outside of the vehicle at the time as the stop the vehicle if the vehicle is a lot and nobody's in the vehicle that the defendant does not hear from me that the deputy does not have the ability to be able to go and guess this is training and i guess that's and that's actually one of the reasons that it's that it is a fourth member eilish to have mr david be sitting in that vehicle because it changes the location of where the interaction actually is it's similar to putting him inside and whether or not it was necessary for or officer safety i don't i don't believe that that makes any difference but when you're talking about a fourth amendment violation just because the officer has additional h camera because pursuant to his testimony he was been beaten up before you wanted everything to be captured and the same officer had previously illegally searched his vehicle for what's important here is that the op the officer the deputy did not take the time to try to explain is heard it is or maybe i have well the offer i believe that the testimony was that the officer heard this and saw the truck the last trip he did lose track of it but then he eventually ended up established that you have a fourth member privacy interest in your in your locked vehicle and you're lucky that you moved away from the so that argument i believe would be would be in violation of his  the vehicle by being able to interact with the defendant while he's sitting inside of the lock being thank you the back of the truck you are serious to me again to get into his vehicle defensive it was locked sat down on the tailgate of the truck the officer said i'd like to get into the vehicle otherwise i'm going to arrest you and the defendant got up close to helping him over and relied on people be smith which is the case that this court decided in february where a traffic stop was executed again in the driveway or in front of the private home the defend it was asked to remain in the car the defendant remained in the car but before the officer completed the ticket the defendant got out of the car with his groceries to go into the house and he contended on appeal since he was found guilty of shocking justice that he had no intent to obstruct he just wanted to put his groceries in the freezer and this were found that all the elements of obstructi as the defendant reenter his car and the defendant refused to do so the elements of obstructing of he's officer were proved the trial judge was correct and find him guilty and the conviction should be affirmed the defendant has a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures that's the fourth amendment the officer there was nothing no indication america that the officer asked him to return to his car some of the officer himself get into the car this is unlike the cases cited by defendant you mean to do you mean if the defendant feel or whether we give this language when the person feels that they're not not able to leave that would apply in this case as well this is a detention for the believe all of the issues that were argued here today were or were actually argued at the trial court by me the state just talked of people versus smith i really think it's important to point out the differences between people versus smith and what's and then what that big difference is the officer actually had a fight with the defendant in order to in order to place him under arrest and that's the big stink ssion between berardi and wedding which is you have just an argument and