shot by they believe a man named brian brinker in moline illinois a couple of or the next day i'm sorry the same day police interviewed it appears mr hopeful at the hospital and a comment was made that the situation would be taken care of on its own it's not clear who exactly made that comment and e mail went out on december third of two thousand and fifteen in the afternoon by the moline police department two officers in the area stating that mr had been shot that he was with four other men including mr ford and another gentleman named tyler minks and quoting someone as saying that they would be dealing with this on their own and based on this e mail and we do not believe much more police stopped the car and which mr ford was a passenger and patted him down for a weapon we're not going to you why wasn't reasonable for the officers to think that the three men in the car were possibly on their way to retaliate against mr brinker i mean the officers had the warning from the rock island police these were the very men who had declined to cooperate with the police in the investigation of this shooting they said they would take care of it and and here they're driving into myleene where mr frank but also where mr x lives are clueless but also where mr banks lives on the same block in fact where they were stopped and it was about two miles from where mr prager lives and i think you know two miles in chicago isn't a great distance that might be just one corner of the city in the same neighborhood but in moline that's it's almost that half of the city and it's really the other side of miles is it is a fairly covers a fairly good part of the city you know i i don't think i think mr hole full has to be separated from mr ford and the reasonable suspicion is  individual eyes determination possibly the police had reasonable suspicion to suspect that mr hopeful was might be armed but but there really isn't any information about mr ford's role in retaliating the e mail itself is faggot just mentioned that mr ford was with mr hopeful when he was shot it doesn't mention that mr ford made any comment about retaliating and the quote the exact quote i have the e mail here which was submitted as an exhibit of the evidentiary hearing was that cameron meaning cameron hall full nor anyone else is cooperating with the investigation and they have stated they would be willing they would be dealing with it on their own so we do not believe that there was an individual i suspicioned with respect to mr ford and then well given the open bottle of the alcohol at this year for its heat could the police had simply arrested him through the open container violation searched  him pursuant to arrests well the open container was not in that he was not driving the car so i would i believe that the arrest the person driving the car would be subject to arrest for an open container in the vehicle not everyone in the vehicle i i believe it would be the drive the driver that was and what was done in the bottle was that his  can't we consider it in evaluating the objective reasonable is the officer's actions i think it can be considered it is a factor of this court has held that and i open intoxicant is a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis because it could suggest that the person subject to the search might be intoxicated and maybe willing to do something they otherwise wouldn't do that their judgment might be impaired but there isn't any evidence that mr ford was visibly intoxicated so it's a factor that the court can consider we do not believe that it takes the case over to the  area of reasonable suspicion that it takes it into that area and then the behavior of the driver and the occupy them so was really unremarkable when they were stopped they were stopped for a traffic violation they stopped more or less than me after the squad lights were activated none of the occupants acted suspiciously there were no weapons found in the car and both mr mix and mr hopefuls were searched and no weapons were found before mr ford was searched so based on all of those factors the e mail itself we do not believe gave the police reasonable suspicion and that it's not rise to reasonable suspicion based on the mr ford or the other occupants of the vehicle once they were stopped and you know as far as the second issue i think it's related to the first whether it was reasonable for the officers to scrunch the item to determine whether it might be a weapon  based on what had happened before that there was a we do not believe there is reasonable suspicion that mr ford was armed we also use caution when dealing with all of the people involved your honor listed what you point out were alot of clues i'll state quickly that there were in fact a few other clues that alcohol was involved the fact that every member in the car had gained entries in the final in history and we haven't even touched on the fact that when he stepped out of the car he had a heavy i mean him sagging from his coat in this cas you know i don't know what their exact entries were because it wasn't made part of the record i'll say that the way that this that the transcript reads and that's on page fourteen of the of the hearing i think we have a substantial amount here the defendant was at the original shooting there was information that he and others planned to retaliate from the shootings three in the morning this the approximate time this was extremely quick court has no further question the government will rest on its priest i just want to clarify the government's reference to the background check on the occupants of the car at the evidentiary hearing the officer testified that there were alerts quote unquote for gang entries weapons drugs that type of thing with respect to all of the occupants of the car i don't know exactly what an alert means and it wasn't really explained of the hearing but i think that's a pretty vague basis of knowledge and doesn't really go to either any individual suspects in the car or any specific dates or or charges and you know they were able to determine if there were any outstanding warrants or prior convictions for weapons of fences and they verify that they were not so is that correct counsel that  case will be taken under advise