concurring opinion off arizona thinking it and they are again in arizona seeking and they explicitly found that long is still good law and long applies to per sec protective searches which is outside of the purview of can't be colliery as not they search the protective search is reasonable not what the protective search you know deal that may be true but in the end if there are nights multiple minds in the console and three shotgun shells in the door what's more dangerous the night may be more dangerous but they're going to do it and it's arrested it's a protective search correct so officer safety unless they're going to see all of the bullets and him he's he's in more danger from the knives and he is the bullets is the name he is playing i believe looking at how the search trans displaying your honors know that that that is where i'm calling from and i'm at that trying to defend do not make much i contact when spoken to spoke to the officer when the officer asked for his insurance and license the defendant provided his license he said he did not have his insurance he did not know he an insurance the officer asked that he look look through the car the defendant looked through the visor and looked around and could not find anything then he told the officer i'm going to roll up my window and broke the window and then he went back down the officer returned to me on a computer check on on both the passenger and the defendant elected to find what he found out was he found out that there was no order of protection against the defendant when you get information that arrests for weapons and assault charges and while he's learning this he's also seeing both the defendant and the passenger make movements that the officer described as furtive particularly on the center console which is what the officer was lost merely because the officer currently has the suspects movements under control because of a suspect is arrested he will go with the officers but if not arrested he will return to their vehicle and that's the point the protective search which is we then he goes on to argue whether or not there is probable cause whereas under a terry analysis and wrong house it's whether or not there was reasonable suspicion for the protective search i think that's the problem with the judge's ruling which is he c risk of using weapons illegally that there was an active order of protection and doesn't michigan versus long tell us that the balancing required bacteria and i'm quoting clearly w the circumstances here allow a reasonable belief even if there are innocent explanations for some of the actions of the defendant here yet just as you know i couldn't agree with you more that the and downtown state street in rockford but disrespect to my colleagues from our crew and justice for cat is the driver of the vehicle no disrespect to my colleague justice for cats and he's speeding and this is an area that's a little difficult at that hour of the morning and he stops and there's nothing going on he does have a passenger and he's in the car with just her and he can't find his insurance card so he looks for it he pulls things out of the console leaving papers and he holds them where however he holds them and the officer can't see what's going on he says ok keep looking to see what you can find he goes back and you runs a situation because the computer finds he's going to a license but he's got an order of protection pending outstanding not for justice burke but for me and i'm not in the car does that mean and by the terms of almost every word of protection i have ever seen and the statute it prohibits the person who is governed by the order of protection from having weapons does that mean to be at the officer can get justice birken just protests out of the car and search their car because there is an outstanding warrant protection which would prohibit them  from having weapons and they're looking for this insurance card in the meantime because if that's the case we're going to have to start telling people who have orders of protection against them that there's another serious danger in their life sure and that is what really governed he was concerned isn't border protection i think the key difference between your head at home and what occurred here is one of the issues is when the traffic staff began the defendant attempted to obscure the view of the office of the officer and thirty officer asked him to roll down the window and told him i could not see in the flashlight and instead of attempting to  him the officer he continued to obstruct the view such that he could not get into the center console now you have that and that that is not in your hypothetical you got him yeah it was that he was looking for the insurance card he had people is in the sand and he person and some movements over that console ostensibly continuing to look for an insurance card because he was told continue to look well in death and he did provided insurance fear were the officers confronted well at the time of the search enough putting things together step by step by step the officer sergeant says go ahead and search it and you're right there's nothing in plain view to put on music and you need to illustrate that in an encounter with the police can change based on what transpires between the defendant or suspect and the officer so there might be a suspicion such that at that point they believe they need to conduct a protective search and you know i i do not read the record saying that he did not fear once you've had him down all safety was was a bit i to the point the question was at that point and this is when they're out of the car and you're handcuffed and then most of the few of the questions leading up to this so they're out of the car general location on the shoulder neither at this point did you not you did not fear for your safety from them is that right answer no because they had both been patted down for weapons you were the only option there at this time at the time that they were both got out of the car standing outside the vehicle no how many particularly those of the justice broker are precisely the issues that i have which you have business situation in which an individual's pull over for speeding and subsequently using able to produce an insurance card it's expired tells you go through that it's in january not as cool as today perhaps but but it is january and call it is early in the morning being cool is occupied by two people you say it's a hunch if you get the information the facts he had facts that's what these cases talked about this officer had facts he had implication that he got from a computer about this man's background that we've just art so how could it be a hunch ok if you look to the record to the interchange concerning the facts that were listen to them to the computer the officer says he did not look into full detail history fifteen years count so when the officer standing there one morning in the car together with the information we've talked about where should we draw the line what would have been a reasonable i guess what would be reasonable whom would be according to th a reasonable person standard if i were looking at a record that were twenty five years ago and i have a fifty two year old individual in front of me that's something that occurred use of early adult life i would also i believe if i were state should have been allowed to proceed to call witnesses the trial court cut the state off and said i don't think the state can present any more evidence was that it was a trucker correct to do that to simply cut it off on a motion a trial judge to the view that the fact that there might be a greater reasonable articulable question of what he is but what we have here is a situation in which the officer intended to make the search no matter what that decision was made by him with a fair reading of the record after it even done it computershare and that's where i think that he ere he could have found more information he conceded that if it was a twenty year officer the one who's out there having to make the decision and if he chose not to obtain any of that information there is a decision that he's made and that means that  i think it's probably not just unreasonable that it's kind of dangerous on the part of the officers not to find out much information as they can particularly if they have some suspicion the individual a stuff is the one who might cause harm to the information fast enough suspicions on the part of the officer but a reasonable articulable fast to indicate that there was again thing in the vehicle that was contraband of any type even if it was just contraband frank and what he did was he made a series of decisions that i don't think were reasonable and as such we all are looking at a situation and trying to determine whether it's reasonable under the circumstances and i don't believe it is in fact what you reproach the car after you have this information he asked the defendant to get out of the car and either he said it to the defendant or this was his thinking i wanted to talk to him about what i found out that's what he said was the reason for getting him out of the car and he did sally did he tell the defendant that he told that he says and i believe the record reflects that he that you are generally experience you just write so what is the i'm leaving out the arrests now because we've talked enough about that what was the purpose then of this order protection be so important in this decision because  illegal use of weapons there was an assessment based by the trial judge conjunction with this order of protection that was upon beyond not allowing him to have a weapon with the order of protection so that's it can be one factor the weight of they could be different but i do think that when you during the testimony of the officer was asked why he feared for his safety and there were issues that according to him he believed and then the computer information in his status correct yes at least that's it there's no rule location no high crime area the suspected offenses not violent there's no me potential factors that could go into protective searches but we have to look at the unique circumstances of this case and we look at the totality of circumstances which is here and it is the people position that there were a number of reasonable with this case was that the court really did not apply the wrong standard and from the get go the court was very focused on probable cause as was defense counsel at that time about whether or not there was probable cause to search for contraband and as the state tried to point out that's not the basis for the search the search was for the protective search and so therefore there was no one else is i'm reasonable suspicion and if there are no further questions you said you had two points did you cover both of them i believe i covered both of them i would only point to that call are really discusses a lot about protective searches and the interplay between different  innocent conduct before they just type designed to make a protective search and justice thomas in the sense that concurrence talks about the fact that results expression can arise at any time during this time it's not a time sensitive issue  he did not ask him to search the vehicle again he asked whether or not there should be anything there is anything in the vehicle that he should be concerned about and the defendant says no and then instead of asking he says why would it conduct you know  the immediate area around then and at that point he then does that now i would agree that sometime between leaving the car and conducting the search of the vehicle two officers and a sergeant to the right i i will say the record does not