ok we have two cases with the same office and both cases same officers on both cases and sort of the same issues so we're going to hold you to your time today twenty minutes save some time for rebuttal him to speak loudly lawful and the mere report that someone possibly is carrying what without more is not enough to provide the police with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause for arrest in this case the officers are trolling to the extent that you know even if a handgun in this case were the presence of yangon were enough for the officers to briefly conduct or you know investigative search pursuant to terry what happened here was the nd they found a gun in his pocket consensual can encounter without reasonable suspicion that that person is art and finally be agree that the mere possession of a gun may may not be illegal but that's not what happened here so here the investigation simply began with the anonymous tip and the anonymous tip wiley can i have support be the sole support for reasonable suspicion to pass someone down it's that also cannot be ignored and we certainly don't want our police to ignore such a anonymous tip we want them to do exactly like they did here which was to go and investigate so they were given a very specific description of a man who might who may have been armed added to get a location and they remembered that they actually saw that man there are within the hour before they received the tip and so what did they do they drove to the location and they pulled up in there on marked car and they got out of the car and they noticed that the man was still standing there matching that description in a group of three other men and the fact time defendant certainly was not detained and from a distance of ten to fifteen feet away they asked everybody to show their hands i doubt time three of the four people did defendant did not at that time defend it was not detained and instead defendant what he did was put his hand in this packet and turned away they began to approach they got closer and they repeated their their request there was no evidence whatsoever that they displayed their weapons and there was no physical touching up until their point and for the th day after that they asked the asked for people to show their hands the only evidence on the record is about what happened about any tone of voice there was literally no evidence that their tone of voice indicated the rd compliance with the request was compelled the only add this was the officers testimony asked and this was a finding if this is a question of fact and fact finder and the fact finder in fact made that frankly he said that i find that they asked and that finding which this court must give deference to especially because it's not against the manifest weight of the absence i do want to point out it is defendants the burden of initial production and x you have burden of persuasion d and he did not testify in this case he did not put on any evidence whatsoever to contradict the officer here to show that until the moment that the officer touched his shoulder that he was he was detained so now we get to the fact that at the point that he did touch the shoulder and they did decide affirmative evidence in jay hour that the officers asked jay alan any questions and observe his response to those questions and observe any movements before they're heading down but here it's a whole different story again we're not ignoring the anonymous tip but now we're their experience and we need to consider it all in the light of it's a quickly a quick at the preserve the obvious of what's going on there that it was very reasonable for them to fear for their safety and the safety of others around them with this individual they defendants to the police officers requests next case are almost identical in this case and that case the the police officer approached the passenger of a car and said show you the  passenger in response to that instead reached over to the console with one hand and put something in his waistband in the other hand and based on back to this court found this and that was the officers experience was enough to pa also suspicious and that's why this argument was rejected in illinois versus ward law which found that that there unprovoked flight upon noticing police  around them and based on the information they have an anonymous tip that this person who you know met this exact description is the exact location may have been arms and they're seeing his furtive movements towards a location is very obvious that he may where a cause so you know when this course had listened to the officers have make that quick appraiser that they have to rely on the officers experience we're talking about probabilities here not scientific know i don't believe there was so the point is probably just what we're talking about here we're talking about probable cause probable and his actions made a probable and this is this court found that in town is to write this court found that very thing in time and that is that even though the actions could be innocent they don't necessarily need negate probable cause we're talking about a problem here and so again he did not need to ask i mean he could have asked he could have asked more questions some of the biggest problems of the state's argument here is that it's changed its theory on appeal and this motion was to get a trial nobody was arguing this was a consensual encounter up until the point he was for the officers didn't testify that we were just asking him questions