me i think the best place to begin is to clarify exactly what we are claiming here we do not claim that there was not reasonable cause to make a stop and we also would agree that the officers acted reasonably by taking precautions to protect themselves and making the stop in other words the multiple cars the manner in which stop was made our claim is that there was not probable cause arrest mr lopez that this was especially true once the officers were able to see him although we believe it was true before then as well and we believe that the district court properly found that this black male a medium complection medium build and height but the car itself was also very distinctive it was a it was a purple ford explorer with shiny wheel hubs and so and what's and this was also a short time after the robbery and i can look and see you so they were perfectly justified in stopping the car and we have never claimed otherwise and i agree absolutely and i also agree that they had the reasonable ability to take precautions at that point in time believing that this might be the driver in the way they managed t that after the stop is me and they order him out of the car at gunpoint we begin with the fact that they have only the most general of descriptions that describes a lot of different kinds of people but i'm not sure that's right he's tall right he's slander there's no description of eyeglasses and he has on a sweater a white sweater with us right now which match the live year of your client well might i've actually got two points on the description first one they gave is extremely vague with very few particulars and matt and it's a lot of people the second is it doesn't fit my guy my guy times time's running so if i can see if i can get this precisely your argument then years it was all right identification they knew his name was not the same name as mr gomez the owner of the green car and once they realized whatever they had didn't match at that point they take him downtown and you're saying at that point that arrest had no probable cause i'm saying by that point there was no problem i actually think that there that the circumstances up to that point they should have stopped the earlier when he emerged from the car when he was fully compliant when he raised his hand turned around and he laid on the ground as and because of his behavior in fully complying with their demands and because when they patted him down they saw that he wasn't armed and dangerous and didn't have a gun and so those combination of events and is a contributing factor yes or no that they asked him for his id he had an idea that had him as the owner of this vehicle which was a different name from the owner of the green car yes that is why i definitely agree that's a contributing factor and the passage of time this is eight hours later and so all they knew i right then laramie right next to the video i think you are perhaps what they should have done is put their guns away and and and talk to him and then again consent or not without all of the other all would amount to a clear understanding on his part that he's not free to go and therefore he's arrested well i don't think you can have it both ways i may have misspoken in answering questions what i meant was in terms of what the police should have done they should have turned it into a terry stop without all of the indications of an arrest and once they were satisfied on the basis of areas then he would have been free to go but if he'd given consent then if you even agreed to come and talk  one of the last three identified himself i think that after he identified himself and after they were sat after they i believe they were satisfied that he was not shooter they should have told him that you're free to go but i also think they shouldn't have and so i'm just simply saying that that terry stop and which the reasons for the original proper software satisfied and the person is then three to go is what should have occurred here and that was the reasonable thing the officer should have done and i mean we deal with these stops on the highway all the time where they give that to the office gives the license back to the driver the officer says you're free to go i would like to talk to you for a few minutes if you're willing to stay and talk to me and that's the classic you know harry stop that then becomes a consensual  which mr lopez produces registration identity how much am i right that the police officers already knew the name of believe not too many minutes after the incident occurred because they had the license plate number and they ran the plates right so yes they had they had had that for many hours by the time the stock is it your understanding the records a little  and he could not recall whether they had taken that step of hearing so our position was if you can't recall whether they did it then that's point in our favor because the government bears the burden of proof but i don't know whether you get or not and  been appearing on behalf of the united states on judge noonan's question about what the officers knew about the registered owner of the car at what they had gotten that's her lopez calm as its name that officer recall that incident we had a photograph that was given to us that somebody had brought out to the scene the photograph of mr i don't remember i can't recall if we have a photograph i'm not of roberto what do i make of that states versus washington is we've got the car we know it's a green ford focus we've got a license plate it's discovered by an officer five minutes after the incident abandoned in a shopping center parking lot now if mr lopez had driven to that shopping center in his white taurus and simply done his grocery shopping and then left the lot he never would have been stopped it was only because of all of his activity  to me they had reasonable suspicion that allowed them to stop and that appears to be common ground yes and stop in the manner in which they did that also appears to be common ground yes you're arguing that they had probable cause to believe that he was the shooter circumstances was there air probability that the gentleman that they stopped in that heavily tented wife or tourist was in fact the shooter now it turns out he wasn't but i think we all agree that it was reasonable for the officers to approach that vehicle with function that he was based upon the connection with the very specific car plus the generic description which i was never a little truck by something with  well and part of it is we're looking at a very closely related series of events now in this year lopez is sitting in that white ford taurus they have no idea how tall you are it's not until he emerges from the car and so then are they supposed to that they never let him go and they took him downtown for questioning so that it's some quiet along the way perhaps when they had him in the backseat of the car and they had chance to reflect on the fact that he was only five six that he had did they did here and on the on the clothing change and the eyeglass change we had an eight hour time and eight hours from now i can guarantee you i'm not going to bring these clothes and i'll probably be wearing glasses well and if you're trying to escape a view of the sort of get you have a lot of testimony in the record about why they did that and the officers explain that ordinarily they wouldn't have they would have questioned him right there the problem was the stuff was conducted right in the middle of a bike lane on a heavily trafficked road so they asked look we're in a bad spot can we take you someplace nearby and the defendant himself testified that he was in the back of that patrol car for all of two minutes and he was in the police station for all of a half an hour you have a very short span and i draw the course attention to the legal case in which all the officers knew there was that they had they were looking for a hispanic gentleman wearing a red shirt they picked up the suspect several miles away from the scene of the suspected burglary guns drawn handcuffed him put him in the back of the car drove him back to the scene of the burglary and a time span of forty five minutes to an hour or so yes my given their reports that you had probable cause there's no problem there and they affirm summary judgment on a nine hundred eighty three quarter so what the officers did here like i say ordinarily they wanted to put him in the back of the car the problem was they were impeding traffic and they were in the middle of  and he consented when they asked are you willing to go back to the police station to talk to us the other thing was as they weren't looking for narcotics they wanted him to go back and speak to a couple of homicide  king and he didn't go with us on the terry stop argument but he did find that there was probable cause to support this arrest here he did saying there's order that the description matched that the defendant which i think is not right i could have said the description coupled with the specific with the car and those are the cases that i cited in our twenty eight jail letter as being sufficient for probable cause winbush all they knew was it was an african american driving a purple s u v sufficient for probable cause the  another witness whose house they were at so i don't think we do know that was the reason why the description was that it was because of just one officer because there are two other people making observations second as the i'm sure the panel is aware there's a difference between being in the car that is suspected of having been involved and dropping someone off pick that car up and mr lopez was never actually in the ford focus also he did with rob someone of the get up eight hours later in the parking lot of a shopping building so there's a lot of speculation that has to go on there that doesn't have to go on if it's george's closer to be then and if he's actually in the car that is an inspector being involved in the incident