examination that there was no indication that damon knew this one to be a prostitute he did not testify that this woman was walking up and down the street in a manner indicative of solicitation the she was dressed in a particular way that she was waving at cars or indicating that of her services and so i think it's extremely relevant that the officer knew this because he testified that he had had a conversation with this woman erica could even before which she had minute to him that she was a prostitute and that there was no indication that dana knew by the officer's own admission and so now we're seeing the fact that officer grosvenor knew her to be a prostitute there was no objective indication that da and approaching wrote she could have some sort of sense for suspicion or something that something's going that doesn't mean you get to frisk right away absolutely not contrary to the in this case the right press does not ensue automatically from the right to approach and you know if dana knew that this woman was in fact a prostitute just by any objective indication the record that she was in fact profiting that evening and i winter ski mask around his neck and the officer testified that you found it to be suspicious because there had been robberies in the area with the ammo being that the robber wore a ski mask like the man that dana was wearing but i will indicate that was should have occurred in this case officer grosvenor does not testify the vicinity of the robberies whether you personally responded to any of them any other physical description of the robber his height his age his  it's a single item of common clothing that the officer offered to justify his action of wrapping up and immediately frisking jane and i think it's i think it's remarkable that there's absolutely no in onclude how this officer could have felt that his safety or the safety of those around him could have been imperiled by i j n and presence on the street he did not perceive criminal meaning in conduct that would have seemed fairly innocuous to you and i cherry recognize that the freedom from overbearing harassing governmental intrusion i single arresting officer at the stop and frisk are illegal and to that end the state through that officer must present specific particular individual i suspicion that singles out this person's actions on the street from any of the other situation courts will consider the commonsense judgment and inferences of human behavior when they determine whether police officers actions fall within that scope of the terrorist act so when the judge says in something up his rationale for the ruling he's about to make he says the officers testimony i believe is not so inconsistent with the way he wrote as it may be the fact that he did not write it is artfully as he might i suppose you can tease say no he's talking about the attempt that impeachment by omission ok and if you look at the entire record of the references specifically he gives credit to the defense counsel for attempting impeachment by omission and two and two points one regarding at what point did the officer see the hat the steamy ask around the neck of the hat and the other one is that what the point that he chose to get out of the car when you discuss is that during this really he's referencing that even though the police officer was that defense counsel time to to impeach him he's overall giving more credibility to the officer's testimony his testimony in court as to the sequence of events which the officer did have a chance to explain about what would you agree that if you down is reasonable in that situation that and to get your question as to people who is washington in that situation there is simply information that there were robberies in the area and the event at the end of it is a general description of the prostitute to to be fresh as soon as you approach them that's that's not the test it's not just certainly so i don't know that the test has demonstrated by the record here this was there were final thing is he wasn't asking her for the time or anything which we can completely now by the size of our because the define it tonight this entire situation and that's something that certainly the judge could factor it he didn't like anything happened at all so we don't need to there that might make a difference but that's not the situation right now we have the situation of him seeing the defendant austin street talk to her and she was targeted and she was under surveillance so the rule of law is that as long as the stand with a police officer in the high crime area where there have been robberies that's what he testified to and that is in the record and it's also inferences based on human behavior it is not a stretch of the imagination that if there were robberies in the area if there was  simply that he knew her to be a prostitute they were sensibly on their beach he saw her at the same time studying across the street and speak to her he could not hear what was said which was which is important and damon could have been asking her for the time he did  have the right to approach it all even if they knew her to be a prostitute no i don't think that that was that sufficient grounds to allow the officer trip roach and essentially what that means is that if the runners are walking down the street in a positive act for the time you you nick wright is rightly concerned about the lack of the objective basis that day and pose a threat to the public i think it's important that the officer merely affirmed the prosecution's suggestion that he may have felt fear for his safety it's also