behavior for it tended to merely be a scene for example upon citing police or hours or to walk the other direction for example rather then right we have here which is actually something that's a lot more which is the defense stopping for example going out of this way so in other words when the cases make the distinction that activity can be consistent with merely going about ones to avoid being stopped by  to question sorry to be invasive then we have to have some evidence that this defendant saw the police car circumstances from the perspective of the officer that inference can be drawn you don't have to have proof that the defendant for example in fact saw the police so in this case it's coming up from behind within a mile presumably i we see it within a minute or so he's very quickly turning off onto it upright private try stops ways comes back on the road goes in the same direction now the officer then this going forward with  legal issue which is reasonable suspicion but you're correct about the fact that that factual findings generally given deference except for this case it's an understated case on the facts there and there was no country testimony from the defen this it's a prosecutor said below the stop it's justified so in those circumstances just because you trial court commented on the officer's credibility with respect to she said i didn't buy that when the prosecutor s negate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity so therefore if there is a possibility a reasonable inference that he was walks in a reasonable inference that he was committing some crime that's not if i can indicate each other it's not like well he's play both states theories of possibilities both of which on their own justified stop and say that now they have no justification because we have two competing theories that doesn't they're not competing theories  court seems to have a problem thinking well that's that the officer must have thought that they were lost so i mean it's like they're talking about this boy in about burglaries in the area in the days center of the question essentially heavily on somebody but even if that were the case even if there were a lot of point says you know if the guy goes ten miles and turns fifteen times and the officer just you know you just can't shake him and just wait for him to commit some sort of infraction that's not anywhere near the case coming right up behind him with very quickly he turns off the road and again turns off again so it's like there's no opportunity for him just to drive lawfully for a while or you know ten minutes or ten miles and say well i've had enough i think i want to kid different nature of the road it's cetera and when a concurring opinion talks about legitimate reasons why someone might take an exit merely just going one trying to continue travel to point i think santa roadblock here he's just try and quickly and is desperate to do so no matter what's inconvenienced sitting in somebody's private drive until a cop goes away it doesn't matter he doesn't care about going on this way the the officer a favor i mean i don't see why if you take an action that if we can at least let's say i agree that means that he doesn't want to be followed but doesn't hero meaning that it's a face of let's  again he just doesn't want to be bothered by the police i think there has to be a line in the summer i don't know that i can you know give you that i don't know that it's a right line but i think there has to be a line otherwise everyone that takes a turn when there is not surviving them automatically has increasing in the last year everyone driving around has that strike against them as far as reasonable suspicion that's not particularize to an individual driver so if you see i mean about time it distinction between something that can apply to a broad group of people and some suspicion that's particularized to that effect and specifically what that but that person dead the lead officer to believe that he was committing a criminal act i mean i don't think the law says that you have to say with specificity what you know i  the rate boarding just like you were mentioning when he turns on the first time dr doesn't come in time he waits till he does the same time he had you then that it becomes a little more suspicious when you do it two times in a row i think if you do it then three times four times five times you're getting a little bit i think what the way terry describes it is by saying what can be seen is this and conduct becomes much less so when it's repeated over and over just like the defendants and terry they went to work in the shop front window came back caught the next one went down looked in the window came back pocket we have a few times maybe they're discussing a valentine's day present buy for their you know for their wives what they've done that twelve times that's really so what can be done two times and it might be reasonable it's getting a lot closer to being unreasonable it war crimes now i'm not you know again i don't want to draw a line and say here is a certain number there's no bright line depends on the facts of the of the case but otherwise innocent conduct can work less so when it's repeated i mean it's more likely let's say they didn't see that there was an officer and the officer managed to stave it's created on the side of the road and the defendant pulls in and it looks like they're looking around maybe because more likely that they are looking for residence to all of us i mean that's a possibility when you've got twelve times two times your last twelve you're not going to pull in twelve times if you lost you can figure out where you're going the first time and then for the second time you know decide what decide what to do from there so as far as credibility goes this is for noted the trial were just didn't believe the officer and i think that that has to play a factor and these cases in general in this case i in some cases might be true but in this case one of these facts that that's not true because there was no particular wise to special and that's why i think it's an interesting question and i again if you fall for the men and there's not a bright line they can be drawn but there has to be a i mean i think there has to be and again i can't i can't tell the court exactly right i think the line should be drawn by there needs a beeline in there somewhere and i think that this case certainly falls on the side of the show's court that believability matters and this is a yes actually flight cases with where we're nearly going into the driveway place well i think i agree i think that like i was saying earlier i think that these that this is on a continuum and if we have had one fly the firing of the continued turning into a driveway it's not even ironic it's a tonic continuum not wanting to be followed you can get on you know if you see an officer and he turn turn tail and walk the other way and you know to jog a little bit you're getting mean think boy far away and it's really objectively any more incriminating than pulling and pulling all over him because he pulled that out and then went into the went into the sack and i think the turning the lights off was probably a common courtesy is way i don't know that it matters because community caretaking according to the supreme court and luminous when the police act in a performing some task unrelated investigation here his main justification for pulling in behind yeah but that doesn't in the correct i mean they look there's a lot about this case that's groundbreaking that yeah i don't i mean my argument to the court is that you can't have that you can't have both it's one or the other and again this is something where factual situations in which well i don't want to respond to that because i think that i can say that there would be factual situations in which that could be the case but this is not that this is not the case i don't think you get to pick and choose and say i wasn't involved in that in the investigation of a criminal statute but you had a particular suspicion that this guy was engaged in criminal and criminal conduct something but don't follow me i think that that's a fair thing for drivers to do and i think that's a candid someone walking away from an officer on the street just as hey i want to talk to the person says i want to have anything to do with you i'd like to walk away and terminate this encounter that doesn't allow the police to say now i've got a strike against you as far as who's on the suspicion of criminal conduct turns around in the driveway it comes right back out goes back on the same highway that you can sign for and so that's over her of circumstance so if the city makes any difference i don't see how it makes the road case less vicious so so