may it please the court i am rebecca curves arguing this morning on behalf of mr anthony collins the issue in this case is whether law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to stop mr collins after seeing him leave a house at which there had been drug activity in the past the magistrate judge relied on six factors to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed in this case first he was seen leaving the house where drug activity had occurred in the past it was roughly at three thirty am or or somewhat after that he was only at the house for ten or fifteen minutes he failed to immediately come to a stop when the officers activated their lights and sirens to the over after the car came to a stop he was moving around inside the vehicle they thought he might be hiding an object or something like that and he did not keep his hands outside of the driver's side window as he had been ordered to do so by the officers terry stop though has to be justified at its inception the last three factors that i read to you were things that occurred after the stop was initiated those can be used to bolster the other the first three factors regarding the location where this drug activity was suspected to have occurred so the reasonable suspicion for this stop is going to rise or fall based on the fact that he was at a home known for drug activity it was early in the morning and he was only there very briefly one of the reasons that i think that we give such strong weight when we say oh the defendant was seen at a known drug house or of the defendant was in a high crime area is that in those locations it has been established that the criminal activity is so prevalent that it makes it more likely that people in that area or in that house might be engaged in that criminal activity here at this particular residence this is not a real hotbed of drug dealing there were two undercover transactions  at this residence one of them was in august of two thousand and fourteen that is two years prior to the stop of my client the second under transaction involved a sale of methamphetamine that was in april of two thousand and sixteen that is two months prior to the car stop in this case although the police had apparently been kind of keeping tabs on this residence for this two year time period they never obtained a search warrant to search the house officer murphy did testify that she had conducted surveillance that she had seen vehicular and foot traffic at the house however she did not see any drug transactions and did not stop any i've been buying methamphetamine from mr curry the homeowner and i believe that mr curry is converting airsoft gun for these toys into opera firearms the second part of that regarding the firearms that was never corroborated by any information now officer murphy also testified that other officers had made stops in that area and she didn't specifically say coming from the house but she said in that area but she never testified whether those stops resulted in any arrests of people who had actually were in possession of drugs that they got from that house so in this case i don't think you can say that drug activity at the house is not so is so prevalent that it it makes you know much stronger the notion that maybe mr collins was engaged in criminal activity if you compare this case with two other apes circuit cases robinson and spots and i discuss these in the brief pretty thoroughly in the robinson instance you had four search warrants served at the location you had controlled purchases can to hand drug transactions were seen at the location same with the stop time of day those do add to it they do now i don't think that my my recollection is the can from the informant had said there have been i've gotten methamphetamine but here before so then they said the april two thousand and sixteen yeah and so the only thing that we know in between that two months time period is that officer murphy and officer swaggart have been sitting on the house and doing some surveillance but they didn't give a lot of detail with respect to that officer swaggart testified that she may have been there three times in that two month time period but it could have been less were they different sorry they definitely do contribute that is fair i just don't think that they have such strong versus black they placed heavy reliance on the fact that there was not particularize fission beyond being a defendant at a particular location in the united states versus black it was an auto body shop people coming and going all of the time under for cover more than one undercover informant who told police that drug dealing was going on there but that was not enough even though mr black had been seen coming and going from there quite frequently and everybody knew what was going on at that location they didn't have particular i suspicion as to him that makes the case of stanley weaker in my good morning ma'am please the court my name's allison dunning i'll be arguing on behalf of the government and as counsel stated there is a single question in this case which is did officers murphy and swagger have reasonable suspicion to conduct this car stop on the defendant and his car engine thirteenth two thousand and sixteen in the government clearly believes that that answer is yes and i would at the outset say that the government does recognize that the factors that we are focusing on for this purpose is the being at the house known for drug activity the time of night and the brief visit to justify that stop at its inception if we agree that the in the beginning of that contact with mr collins was at the time that the officers lit up his car with their lights and sirens and working back from that as well and i think that first his first reaction before he stopped his vehicle i don't it could that be in some sort of a gray area because he hasn't stopped he hasn't had contact and there's a case that the government sided dowdy that's an eighth circuit case that's similar in the sense that the officer held up his hand and told the defendant as if to indicate to the defendant to stop when he was in a parking lot the defendant back to his vehicle up away from the officer and that was counted as part of the inquiry about reasonable suspicion in that case and so in answer to that question i think potentially the immediate reaction to them initiating the stop might be relevant but the government's position is it's not necessary because certainly at the time that they initiated the car stopped they had raised most efficient to do so and to your honor's point about what was happening from april two thousand and sixteen to this car stop in june thirteenth two thousand and sixteen there actually was more information and more that had been done other than just the surveillance detective hart right actually he testified that because his appearance changes so drastically that he was actually to go able to go in as an under cover both in august two thousand and fourteen and april two thousand and sixteen but apparently under a somewhat different persona because he looks so much different that mr curry didn't realize it was him that there were two different confidential informants on each of those and deals but after the april two thousand and sixteen undercover buy that was completed with mr curry in the garage of his residence there ninety twenty eight oak street detective cartwright also testified that there was an attempted by with a separate undercover officer not him and a third confidential informant and that those two  out to interact with them apparently and he described it as as he was told because it wasn't him but he saw a car driving by or in the area that he somehow perceived might be indication of police presence and  he guy i don't know if he yelled or he commented but he said the words police police and he ended up running into his garage of his residence and shutting the door and then the deal didn't take place and so certainly that spans that distance between april and june the date of the car stop additionally i think it's important to know the officer murphy and this is not a situation where detective cartwright had an interest in this house and contacts officer murphy to help him actually occurred the other way around i'm innocent in terms of who contact who because officer murphy was a district the surge she worked in a you know she's a uniformed police officer in a in a marked patrol vehicle and she had heard and her testimony in the hearing that there was some activity and some arrest taken place in that neighborhood and she did she testify that the quiet neighborhood there wasn't you know known for the area is not a high crime area this is just a neighborhood and so she when she looked up a report of of an arrest and it described in the report based on what she concluded from reading that that is that this address ninety twenty eight oak street was a suspicious was suspected to be a meth house and she put that together with information she knew about a person who lived in that neighborhood who had died from a drug overdose and in her mind she thought perhaps this person got their drugs from the same house because the person who died didn't drive much and she figured he probably had to get his drugs from somewhere near his house and he apparently lived near mr curry and so she it was that interest that she had in the house that she ended up checking the address to make sure nobody else had an interest and that's how she got in touch with detective cartwright and so it's important to know that she had her own suspicions about that i believe because and she also had an understanding that drug deals would be the type of thing high traffic area to and from the house would indicate potential drug activity she knew that brief visits would indicate potential drug activity so when she spoke with detective cartwright he actually gave her more information about this particular house and confirm that this is a house that's known for drug activity just really no way around that characterization that it was done or covered by had been made there it was a methamphetamine and mr collins was not just present in the area of the house as is the case and some of the cases that were cited in the briefs he's not even just present at the house he's present at that particular location in that house the south raj which was where the undercover buys had both taken place and it is where the confidential informants three separate confidential informants had told detective cartwright and as he put it the exact same information about these tales and so they had a very good basis to believe that that house and that south kharaj was used for drug sales and they also knew that they happened over night not wasn't just sort of a shot in the dark so to speak and the drought you know bad things happen at night there was actually information mr curry who was the person selling drugs did that at night because he had a day job and at five o'clock he have to work got his drugs he went home and in the garage he would wait for people to show up to get drugs and the officers al knew he drove a white motorcycle so if the white motorcycle is there that's a good sign he's there and so on june thirteenth two thousand and sixteen when murphy and swaggered are there they're seeing all these things come together this is the house this person drives up and he doesn't just drive up to goes into the garage stays for ten to fifteen minutes consistent with the typical drug sale and and he's doing it in the time when you would expect mr curry to be selling drugs and mr curry was apparently home because his motorcycle was there and there was a light on in the garage and the other thing that sort of spans that distance as opposing counsel spoke to is that they had detective cartwright testified i think he put it as they kind of kept mr curry on the loose radar for the period of time from august two thousand and fourteen until june two thousand and sixteen officers murphy and swagger had also done that surveillance and they saw higher increased traffic and officer murphy testified that that higher than expected traffic at a  residence especially in the overnight hours and for short periods of time all indicated to her that there is a reason to believe that mr curry is doing exactly what he's been doing they may not have been in there and having direct contact with them but there is no reason for them to believe he was doing anything differently into the house that one of them he was stopped on the street the other when he had been seen kind of acting as a car but he didn't wasn't seen going in the house and that's what makes this case so much clearer is because mr collins was not just in the area was actually a case where the government was the evidence was critiqued because there was reason to believe that a car had been in the area of a suspicious place but nobody had ever seen the driver of the car and which is of course distinguishable greatly from this case where mr collins was seen going into the place and the bowman case is kind of similar to that officer at that in that case had had a ted that there was a house that was cooking ma and that had identity of the match cook in the meth cooks car and but had never confirmed any of bad never saw that person and so again those cases are all quite distinguish distinguishable from the facts of the of the current case and really that what they knew about th house was quite extensive and the defendant was showing up there at exactly the time you'd expect him spending the amount of time you'd expect for there to be a drug deal taking place and so for those reasons the government does believe the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate that car stop yes i think if the stop is valid i think they're able to get him out of the car and look inside the car one thing i wanted to point out i think this just takes a little bit of reading between the lines is that when they started following mr coll and then until that point where they actually initiate the stop i think it's roughly five minutes now granted one of the officers testified that they wanted to get a little bit away from the house not announce their police presence but i think that indicates that they doubted whether they had reasonable suspicion for this stop they are waiting and waiting for him to commit a traffic violation and he just doesn't do it as for as there being three separate conscious then szell informants we have no information at guarding the reliability of those informants one of the obviously was reliable because they did the purchase of methamphetamine after he provided information the other two not so sure there is never anything corroborated about these refashioning of firearms counsel mentioned that the ten or fifteen minutes that mr collins was in the home was exactly the amount of time you would expect for the drug deal but not in this particular case when they did the undercover buy for the methamphetamine they waited in his resident in his residence for i think over an hour he had to go get the drugs and bring them back the first by two years prior was for hash and with such a small amount he just gave it to them there is no typical for this particular house or for this particular dealer thank you for