the automatic companion rule although the district court stated it was applying the totality of circumstances test yet also stressed that the most essential factor legitimi the driver of the car had a firearm in fact the police testified to the discovery of morales his firearm as the sole reason for ordering to reprise a backseat passenger out of the car let me see if i can understand what it the situations in which the first at first result in the discovery of a firearm i believe so i believe that's how it works that the path first actually has to reveal a firearm on the driver or the let's say a passenger and then everyone else in the car can be passed for us for that reason it's basically sort of an automatic suspension suspicion that everyone else is armed and here are nothing else impressed the police  as suspicious or calls for first hit for their safety concern as directed to chiro plans and in fact there was nothing else suspicious by the car occupants they were fully cooperative there's no evidence of any commotion  question is the general principle why can't the automatic companion who work and it's because the three small suspicion requirement would essentially then be this aerated because the reasonable suspicion required requirement is that there are specific behavior that they're belying on except for the behavior that he's in a car with a driver who's got a firearm concealed firearm on him so that is individual says to him that distinguishes him from they are authorized to search the driver's well once there was probable cause to search a car that i mean that that deals with the property in the area of the car but that doesn't go to the person the person has his or her own physical integrity and personal security and that's exactly why before packed down can happen of the person the person has to be a reason to believe that that person is armed and dangerous and we simply don't have that here what's a police officer to do t situation and they also called for backup so they didn't need to do that further south and of course terry is a two step inquiry it's not just can you order everyone out the car it's now that you're thinking about the further step of her pat downs you actually have some specific facts we can go on that this person is armed and dangerous and we don't have that here and you can really see the problem with it because the police have this the police in puerto rico at least seem to have this policy which is revealed in this case in the matter is that his mistress case where it's ok gun found on one of them it's just automatic we're just going to get everyone in the car and pat down everyone that's the policy and what's interesting if you read the police testimony is it's not just concern for themselves the way they test is we're concerned about them to the occupants of the car well before the minute totally projects that kind of paternalistic notion that the police can patch you down for your own good that's that's not what the fourth amendment allows the fourth amendment does not allow such invasion of that proud bodily integrity because well we just want to make sure everyone safe you know there has to be there have to be  your point is i understand your response to your saying the way the police have are limited to taking care of their safety is they need to keep a shop by the passenger and see if he's making any further movements order the driver out of the car they could keep a gun on him they could be watching him and yet we know in this situation where soon they had a right pat first the driver precisely to protect their safety and once they then actually find a gun on the driver is an officer going to start getting a lot more concerned about what the driver's window and is doing there while he's watching oh i do want to quickly point out that that they didn't pat for us around this right away they saw the gun first so they said oh they did they basically did all the right things the first they've just gone down the car and there was a detention there at first anyway but then they they took that next step when they saw the there was no sort of division there where let's say if they were ordered out every one of the car and to rope was it was acting invasive or he's maybe clutching something there's appalls i mean there are a line of he says in which this court does give a lot of police officers one is pointing a gun at everyone they are not the police can't testify to any concern about these arguments and they are calling in other cars and to patrol car show up while the events are unfolding police officers should be able to search but in this case we actually have more could look at the totality of the circumstances this event occurred late at night with eleven pm the officers were outnumbered or to one for officers to officers as compared to four passengers and their vehicle ironic you are correct that the other officers did not arrive until after mr troop was searched in addition to that all this is happening in the context of factors including the fact that the driver was in close proximity to mr to plaza it was rated night the officers are outnumbered they are because of the vehicle are young and the fact that these officers were shoulder on the road it was one when in each direction and the only way to pull over was to go with the first exit which is right that i'm not i'm not sure about i'm not sure about  that in this case to tell you the circumstances justified the obvious and reasonable suspicion that mr terry plaza was armed and dangerous and i think if we step back and look at the situation and the safety of both  the subject and the tavern and the bartender who is being searched at the time in that case was not dealing with a firearm it was a drugs and so it is you know for the questions the united states will rest on its credit this result as testimony that the pursuit began in a high crime area which is the month block area which my father talks about in the district court did not say anything at all about the mom park area or a high crime area basically the district court just kind of broke the tide by saying well all of puerto rico has this this gun problem in this crime has really increased and so for a matter of policy in precaution i'm going to deny the motion to us and then as far as when the patrol cars arrived i would point this court to record appendix pages numbers thirty one forty four and eighty four that amply supports the magistrate's finding that the patrol cars