convictions for felons who possess loaded firearms our position is the answer to this question is yes the legislature amended this provision just months after this court decided people v carter carter presented similar facts and that a felon in that case possessed multiple i arms that were loaded and also an unloaded firearm and my army mission he was charged and convicted with multiple counts of u felon this court found that absent further language there you dug a statute at the time neither prohibited nor authorized multiple convictions based on the simultaneous possession of a firearm  possession of more than one controlled substance constituted a single and separate violations this court held that that language expressly authorized multiple convictions and also demonstrated that the legislature was aware and knew how violation right that's correct if a felon is caught with a box containing fifty rounds of ammunition is that one offense or fifty depending on how he's charged it could be fifty yes that's so it depends really on how the state decides to case that's correct but they could go the fifty road correct the language that this court endorsed in carter that language providing for single and separate by of violations author is this is applies here and for the the language is clear the legislature was plain and they clearly meant to persist to punish felons who possess loaded firearms by providing that that those possessions are to offens the possession of a loaded firearm by a felon is not the equivalent of possessing a loaded firearm or just firearm ammunition here the people treated defendants conduct separately the conviction for armed to digital criminal is based on defendant crime rule was implicated in this case is just erroneous defendant's possession of defendant committed two different violations of the law as designated by the legislature and even if there was even if the one that one crime was implicated it doesn't apply here because we have we do not have convictions based on precisely the same physical act we have convictions based on possessions of two separate and distinct items of contraband him a little confused earlier because there clearly seems to rely on just the specific statutory language providing for multiple penalties and not on one act one crime or correct correct and i i specifically allowing for two convictions for the single act of driving so in that case unions actually supports our position because what our argument is that the carter men did not allow for separate convictions under separate statutes now the state argues that there are this is one act and that there are two separate acts and that therefore two separate convictions one for you that you have found and one for armed which will criminal first for the possession of a single loaded firearm and stand but this state is wrong and the first instance of possession of a loaded firearm is a single physical art as contemplated by king prescott secondly the amended view that you by phone statute does not address possession explicitly of a single loaded firearm which is what the appellate court determined here that the unit of prosecution was not specifically delineated and third the language of the amendment itself as i just explain for you to be bipolar and one arm habitual criminal so if the legislature had followed the news example and allowed for separate convictions under separate statutes then the state's argument would be correct but that is not what the example if you're holding a box that has fifty rounds you're doing the single time you're holding a box and that is why this the act of holding a single loaded weapon does not does not constitute two separate proof law enforcement that's they chose to pursuit on and instead of the other individual standing on the sidewalk who walked away in opposite directions as soon as the police car pulled up the officers pursued all men from the street to the confined inside of a very small store and officer davis stood in front of all and in the back of the store with all means back to the wall and that's physically blocked any further movement by mr on and and immediately and without any preliminar demanded to know why only it was in the store and whether he had guns or drugs on him the state argues that this was a consensual encounter but it consensual encounter necessarily contemplates the opportunity to consent terminate that encounter let's assume this was a seizure while the court found that this was a seizure the court was wrong in its determination that the officer had reasonable suspicion now i'd like you to no height drug trafficking area and two the appellate court found flights to high drug trafficking area there was no evidence offered at the motion to suppress or a trial that this area was a high drug trafficking area  officer davis testified that he was responding to a citizen complaint so that was not transformed into evidence that this was a high drug trafficking area and secondly there was no testimony at trial or a motion to suppress about flight nothing suspicious when he followed him into the store and began his questioning here what the police were armed with at the time that they approached antonio was a citizen complaint an anonymous citizen complained that several black men were selling drugs on a corner of chicago's south side a black neighborhood and that is why this cases on all fours with florida via jail in jail and that the police were armed with even more information than the officers had here because in jail the officers knew the age range of the young black man and they knew what he was wearing and it was a young black man at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt here by contrast the officers were only looking for several black men they didn't have a clothing description they didn't have an age range or a hairstyle or complection they didn't have any money at least half of the information that the officers had in florida the g l and notably again officer davis said that ahmed was doing nothing suspicious before davis the again his interrogation in this case the salient issue is the illegal seizure or all means fourth amendment rights were violated we asked for reversal of all his convictions specific case there's not a lesser punishment for having a loaded gun because in this case that mr almond was was convicted of armed to digital criminal which is a higher class offense it's a classic suspense and he had certain eighty five percent of his term punish an offender more when they carry away two convictions despite the fact that there might be a conviction on an offense that carries a longer sentence the legislature has also designated that same language its single and separate claim regarding a fourth amendment violation the trial court reached the proper conclusion the trial court her heard two diametrically opposed versions of what happened and he believed the officers the officers testified that i would just first like to discuss some of the evidence that appellate court relied on that was just not contained in the record there was no evidence whatsoever of a seizure we had officers whose supervisor or desk personnel asked them to go investigate drug sales out of a liquor or a little lock food store and the officers complied with your supervisor's order and went to investigate and that is all they did there was no evidence whatsoever that the police pulled put their car in front of the store and blocked anyone's eat rats from that store there was no evidence that any officer pushed or black defendant up against the wall that what the officer testif to was that he approached defendant and on cross examination he was asked well where was the defendant standing and was standing at the back of the store with his back to the wall that's a much different version and what the public hold her construed the facts and the officer merely approached the fan and engaged in a consensual encounter the officers were not dressed in uniform they did not display their guns they didn't give any orders they didn't say stop they walked in to conduct a field interview one officer spoke to defend them while the other officer spoke to two other gentleman there was no show of force the officer said what are you doing here the defendant said he was buying chips when the officer observed that the defendant was seemed to be at the back of the story said do you have any drugs or weapons and defendant volunteered there was no tone no one testified to any tone of voice just a conversation no seizure and that defendant was was going to show the police officer his gun and in this situation the trial court found there was no terry stop there was no seizure that was the correct finding because the found then according to the facts that questions so that's why this case is not on all fours the way out where there is a description and the officers went immediately and apprehended people the officers did not make any moves to apprehend anybody or stop anyone until defendant notify the officer that he possess gun and offered to give it to the officer for these reasons and the reasons in our brief we ask that you affirm that the trial court's ruling that this was a consensual encounter that no seizure occurred and