search in all cases in which the police were investigating a burglary case the only supreme court said that that particular argument was not was not going to be allowed because of the fact that it's a general sort of thing it's a situation whether or not given his mind set that subjectively reasonable let me ask you this but that his own experience the fact that he has experience of the other officers didn't share that experience is that experience  were three individuals in the vehicle but that would have given greater justification for the search that was not present in development in the in flowers and i think that's more closer in terms of facts i think to galvanize the followers in terms of we don't have a vehicle here we have a situation where at all times these defendants or this defendant was co operative was compliance and did everything in other words you know if there is no longer any justification for a frisk than it has that right i'll go forward with the right anything anything in this particular case when you first get actually occur when they did occur you have to look at what what's going on here and i think what's going on there is he has a subjective belief and based on your belief again i understand why he's doing what he's doing he's not going to take any chances the question is whether th look if you go through the testimony of the truck counsel pointed out when he questioned crowe basically was the only way that you were able to observe what it was that you observed was a connection with the furnace can he kind of identify what he did with the his thought process would be he would i think logically for us covering bribery suspect that he came into contact with given what his subjective belief is and i think that sort of practice  where you don't get into the specific in particular right reasons why you're doing something and just searching a class of people like in reverse for instance there was a case where the police had a subjective belief that all  flowers are real the officer basically said i do this you know every case where i stop anybody and so when you get into the problem the sort of general classes of people who are sort of this idea of routine the courts have basically said that understand your brief that is in this argument don't conflate the issues one with the pat down takes place there's at least three and probably four officers are there on the scene what justified the frisk under those thought it was dark and that affects the officers visual assessments here and his experience he stated i believe that in my experience not just i just think manner which as you said if these type of stop should be conducted in the expeditious manner so that we can be released the fact that he he did feel that he needed first before conducting an interview well why are you out here at one am you know these are you never asked that you know he did but he first first before even conducting these these questions i think it is a testament that he felt it guess the judge felt that he believed that the two that two percent dispatch but even if the numbers are off the dark clothing they were only a block and a half away it was one a here we have a case please put yourself in the shoes of these this is these are all stars that if you were confronted with the same situation where you had these two suspects and you had a good idea that there weren't any suspects where it was dark  efore they were headed down and some other officers arrived this back up with be fair to say yes sir so other officers were present at the time the first occurred but the second thing is this is an injustice