issue it's our position the lower court should have excluded all the evidence collected as a result of the illegal stop and seizure police were not justified in conducting a terry stop because their suspicions were based on a what would have been a terry stop but because mr floors look at us was provoked into flight by the police not properly identifying themselves they weren't all wearing  police uniforms and they were they came at him with their guns pointed at him which provoked him into flight and i think but if you go back actually did they actually stop him until after the accident or they did not stop him until he ran off the road your honor and but they attempted to stop  reason that they tried to stop him for was dead i mean in the government's brief they say that his van looked strange or odd i mean that just describing a hunch your honor and in the fact is that when we can consider all the traffic violations and all the other reasons that they could have well i think there is a high risk to the public in the actions taken by law enforcement here trying to do this  takedown in the middle of a crowded shopping center and you know that if you get that's a different quite that's a policy question rather well if the government's position is that you know the police can come in should point their gun in your face and then not identify themselves and then you drive off and commit some minor traffic violation then they have a reason to stop you i think that's you know that's problematic and it shouldn't be it should be deterred by the exclusionary rule counsel has just spoken what's your best case supporting this  well the let's see the case of the wardlow case is is sort of the inverse of this right where they were in a high drug area and the suspect ran off unprovoked and i think you know the inverse of that is this was not a high drug area this was a shopping center and you know if police are going to be able to provoke people into my head you've got a case where provoked flight provoked suspicion they should have even tried to stop them and all the evidence should have been excluded but moving on to the other issues that we had a motion to dismiss was essentially handled by the court as a motion for reconsideration and i think the court erred there when it viewed is a motion to dismiss is it's just a reconsideration of the court you know the lower court reasoned that the issue had been raised and but it actually had not been there and if you go through the initial motion for suppression it never mentions false testimony or at least perjury or any of the new or do you just have to say the nine a motion to dismiss and if he didn't say that he made girls who are well your honor i think it is an error to just not even consider that the motion to dismiss in due process context and that's what the court did they just said oh this is a rehashing of the suppression issue and didn't even look at due process and i think it's a denial of due process when the government allowed false evidence to come in and go and correct it and there was the st case this morning had a similar issue where the court knew that there were  the government knew that false evidence was being introduced in the suppression hearing and they failed to correct it and then for the court to just ignore that was i think a reversible error clothing you know the police does it how does it help with perjury well i think there are a number of just of false statements put into evidence by the government and they failed to correct  n and it was there were a lot of false statements just that were obviously false looking at the video evidence that we have that we're going to be a lot more specific and that could is for example there is the testimony that floors look on has committed a felony by merely striking an officer on foot with his van that's false we can see in the video that there is a car in between the van and the police officer it would have been impossible for him to commit a felony in that manner another police officer testified that although law enforcement officers were and police tactical vest as falls we can see that in the video police claimed a white substance was being thrown out of the van's window there's no evidence to support that in fact there's more evidence that suggest the whole thing was made up you know one no substance was ever recovered some of the police admitted they weren't sure whether he was throwing things up the window or not a police canine dog was brought in and went up and down the highway didn't find any drugs i mean that's to me should be pretty definitive that he wasn't throwing things out the window i can't imagine an issue that's less than this more immaterial what it's what happened  has claimed in his final ings that the police lied about these bullets and gun magazines being found on his person he said that wasn't the case that didn't happen and i'm saying that there were other fal if i could move on to the the rd issue your honor the speedy trial you know my client sat in jail pretrial incarceration for over fo later filings he said that his st eternity did those things without his consent or coerced to into consenting and those those delays were basically they were caused by his st attorneys medical issues and personal family issues and they were caused by the defendant himself you know but the biggest concern here is the jointer of the co defendants which reset the clock multiple times and you know this jockeying for position resetting his clock multiple times by adding defendants at the last minute was unreasonable and you know maybe technically we didn't go d over this seventy days in the speedy trial act but i think it violates the spirit of the law and it violates his th amendment right to speedy trial  and i think you know they're there for factors in the dog it case they're fit they're favoring my client's claim you know that the delay was uncommonly long the government has more to blame for the delay mr lo incarceration mr le gone us felt compelled to plead guilty so that he could begin his appeal process and i think you know somebody sitting there in the county jail and being shuffled around in these competency things which he never asked for i mean i think you know he i think that's the reason he wanted to fire his st attorney was even that was asking for a competency evaluation and that laid his case another you know there was no stop in the parking lot in this case as judge grindr has correctly pointed out the officers had decided to make an arrest and when they did so mr forrest logo on us i sped up collided into the jeep the unmarked jeep and sped away when he did so he began flight which this court in which the supreme court has said is a consummate act of evasion and in that manner of his flight he certainly gave rights to probable cause to arrest under minnesota state law as the district court found but there was probable cause to arrest him before then as the record in this case reveals there had been an extensive approximately two month long investigation into drug trafficking in southern minnesota numerous individuals have been identified there are four recorded phone calls involving cooperate ing individuals and at this stage law enforcement's goal was to locate and identify the in who were responsible for drug transactions mr forrester going as himself directed the cooperating individual to the parking lot as a place for the drug transaction to take place and chose that site specifically as opposed to a motel that had been there earlier site for the planned transaction the officers observed a number of things that gave rise to suspicion sergeant schuler who is considered and  experienced narcotics investigators pacifically testified that he saw strange movements of the vehicle so it wasn't simply that the vehicle was strange it was the behavior of the driver and that was mr flores logo on us there  interactions between individuals in the parking lot on foot near vehicles that were known to be associated with the drug conspiracy and touring and accident stores as planned as part of the transaction all of those facts have to rise to probable cause to arrest in this case and then obviously as the high speed chase and subsequent on foot chase ensued there was additional probable cause to arrest mr flor us so with no stop in the parking lot and with a ample amount of probable cause relating to both in our critics investigation and the events of the high speed chase this arrest and the subsequent search was lawful and in accordance with this court's precedent but if there are no questions related to that issue i'd like to briefly address the motion to  dismiss for a legit police perjury the defense counsel has raised a number of statements or actions that he believes constitute fos statements and simply put the record in this case reflects that the officers testified in a measured accurate and truthful way and the video in this case provides only a limited window into any of the events in the parking lot as this court is well aware videos can show facts but they don't always show the entire picture and that's precisely the case with this surveillance video review of the video shows that the advantage of the camera is impeded by items like signs and even on the car itself impe a full view of what happened in the parking lot and critical incidents in that parking lot are covered by those impediments so the video is simply additional evidence but it doesn't in any way controvert the testimony of officer green and sergeant schuller and i'd like to point the court to the transcript of the pretrial motions hearing in this case on page thirty nine dollars there is the question about whether the officers were wearing marked uniforms or what kind of gear they had on and the testimony is i believe they were i know at least two of them that i saw immediately were wearing them i can't for sure say all four were but they were wearing marked and so again that officers testimony is measured it is not overselling are misrepresenting what he saw that he is attempting to recall in answer to a question and trying to provide accurate information that there is no false testimony in this case and again the government presented evidence in support of its contention is that this that the events in the parking lot and the subsequent high speed chase created a probable cause to our at the district court level reasonable suspicion that we believe the better argument is probable cause to arrest mr floors up on us and unless there are any questions regarding that while it is true that there was a long delay in this case that delay is well accounted for by an extensive pretrial proceeding involving his competency those his counsel the district court and the government were concerned about his mental health and well being for various reasons his counsel alerted the court to threatening her menacing am actions by mr flow gone is in their own interactions the government offered  instance in which mr flores slid on us made a motion looking like cutting someone's throat at a witness at the pre trial suppression hearing and the district court itself observed mr forrest will go on has to respond in a completely nonsensical and troubling way at a pretrial conference so the order for a competency determination was absolutely appropriate and it goes to what the speech trial act tries to accomplish which is balancing the public's rights and the defendant's r the defendant has a right not to be tried when he is mentally unwell and the public has a strong interest and not having those who are incompetent being forced to undergo a criminal trial so while the scrutiny of his mental health took a long i see so if i understand your honour's question you're asking if the speedy trial act yields with individuals who are found to be and competent and the time it takes to restore their competency yes that's not specifically mentioned in the speedy trial act although you may interpret it as being subsumed in delay resulting from any perceiving including examinations to determine the mental competency and so while the restoration process isn't mentioned in the act i don't find any authority we haven't found any authority that would say that in the restoration process can't be considered as part of subsection h one a of the speedy trial act in this case your honor the delay again fits well with the intent of the speed trial act itself the public again has no interest in having someone who is mentally unfit or incapable  defense to be tried and the statements on the record by the defendant make clear that he was not at that time capable of proceeding in a way that would be acceptable to this court or the public with respect to the jointer of poda fence which was also raised by defense counsel in this case there was one superseding indictment which simply added a small number of additional defendants this was not the kind of dilatory conduct or i'm stratagems to try to delay the case in fact the district court all found all to the contrary and described the government as diligen and continually preparing for trial in this case and the record supports that every time a trial date was set or a pretrial conference was sat there a government was ready to proceed the government filed its pretrial motions at the appropriate time and even took the extraordinary step of filing two motions to ask the district court to calculate the number of speedy trial days in this case so in conclusion unless the court has any other questions related to that issue i'll rest on the br we asked the court to affirm all of the rulings of the district court with respect to this appeal and we certainly they can't be as good as your are correctly states so that's certainly one way to approach it if the language of the statute is not sufficient and you know i don't think the government can rightfully say that he was being restored to cup and c because the final evaluator said well he wasn't really you know he didn't really have a mental health problem it was that he became indoctrinated while he was in the jail with these ideas about sovereign citizenship and these pseudo legal arguments and i that wasn't the case and so he wasn't being restored during that time because he never was actually incompetent and that's what the final valuation says and i think you know it's just  it's just a miscarriage of justice to have somebody sitting in in the jail for years and years and years because people don't understand what he's saying and you know he's got these strange beliefs but he's not mentally ill  and then to move on to the you know the attempt at the the st issue i think the stop the attempted stop initiated the entire sequence and i think if the supreme court has said that unprovoked flight evasion they never said that provoked flight was and it's important to remember that police were looking for a white pickup truck and they singled out my client because he was the only other hispanic man in the parking lot men think that's very problematic and you know a violation of his rights and it is as far as the nd issue there is in the transcripts one police officer at least one officer