court of an evidentiary hearing on our motion to suppress and it might also raise the fact that we believe a judicial notice was improperly taken by the court in making its ruling and we believe that both of those issues are inextr police exceeded terri and the scope of terri in terms of the search the government responded with a bunch of generic facts with no specific detail no martin or no particulars and the repl filed by the defendant contested those facts and i think the main if we were to get to the gist of what's at issue it's the court's reliance on the government's position that there was some inherent danger to the police based upon the neighborhood where this search took place we challenge that how do you count for your state and the reply a memorandum that the government's response provided no new facts justifying the detention or search  the it's justified by virtue of the nature of what the government starts forth if you're going to say that an area is dangerous you should provide some particulars where there is that where does that come in the car was st fact be true as i understand ninth circuit law is pretty clear that you can't raise it before us if that were true but i think in the reply she said that once the it was determined that it was a pass container he should have been allowed to go on his way and that's where she was getting toward going towards in saying that they exceeded the scope of terry you have to say that he had no suspicion reasonable suspicion open up the pages i believe she did by referring to united states versus thomas was that the response did not present any facts to clarify what had been what had already been alleged it just created new facts that she was responding to in the reply that you don't you acknowledge that your client said  weapon and it's harmful to him or anyone else absolutely i think the facts in this case then you know why because there's a difference between feeling something determining that it's harmless and then starting to or he doesn't know it's harmless until he pulls it out well you know  terminate the truck they stop this vehicle you acknowledge that they can hold the passengers as well as the driver for a period of time if your view when did this such traffic stop terminated such that  everyone that was hit rest is free to do whatever they got to go at the point in time where mr don't do the friend is taken out of the car does no longer reason for him to to be detained is no longer a reason for him the question he made no claims to the car he didn't ask to drive the car he didn't ask to do anything he wasn't connected with the neighborhood away at that point when they said to step out of the car and just wait here could it work the way they could if they could he couldn't have because there were officers were surrounding him and i think that have a traffic stop is that terminated yes well they already had the person who was driving the car and who claimed that she had the registration which blew out the window it had nothing to do with him she had been arrested yet she had been arrested just he stated he was told he was kept in the no right to see the term and whether or not this was a legitimate came the rap or whatever it is or maybe has some sort of weapon in it it is my it is our position that they had no right to go into the container it's also our position that the case that was going to be that was intimate it is going to be in a unique defense and trial that the ammunition clip that the defendant held onto was somehow a has dispenser without the head of the because it's not your own it what was pulled out of the allow you to if you had the chance to look at it to allow you to also open it up and see what was inside if you conclude the consent that was given did not allow it to be opened it would simply be off for safety again to make sure that this wasn't brought forth was because at the initial stop the officer angela got out of his vehicle went and talked to the driver mystery copeland as well as the defendant asking them personal information he utilized that information on for computer records to determine what their background was after arresting mr copeland and finding out that she had arrest warrant for doing for possession of dangerous drugs and for drug paraphernalia they also around the records for the defendant found that he had given false information and had determined independent  search a basis for arrest the officers arrested the defendant for possession of drug paraphernalia and for false information to police officers all that information again the false information was completely independent of any search that he was he was definitely arrest starting to the convention they were trying to suppress they felt that i believe the way i looked at there was two reasons first was that the and i asked her reason i'm trying figure out what what was used  traffic stop and they stopped the vehicle it's your friend across the aisles position that i don't could have walked away only after they arrested the light well i don't didn't try to walk away and that's what's always to the court number one that he didn't try to leave there was no injury issue regarding that that's a hypothetical thing down these jihad and i think if he did want to walk away if someone would have walked in you couldn't pat them down if he has the passenger decided to get up and walk away i suppose that could have occurred in that in that juncture you suppose one could have occurred that the defendant could have got up and just walked away from there i would think that for officer safety you can sing a little too much that when is my first question was when was this traffic stop terminated when is it over everyone go home if you're not arrested stay here if you're arrested the officers had a reason right to determine the people they had there obviously they determine found the person information that traffic stop was not only part and parcel of a traffic violation that occurred but also in determining what persons were present there so as they're running that information the computer it is done in a reasonable time that's when the scene can actually dissolve and go forward from there to search the paths but he made no such issue in the district court is that you still maintain that position i take it that you are in fact the district court argument was made by different attorney this is a separate attorney making this argument here trying to do the motion nor their reply that demonstrates they are contesting argument yes you're on thank you very much i only have a couple housekeeping now i have a couple of points with regard to the affidavit i did read a case that california has a general order requiring an affidavit or declaration under oath for motions we don't have that in arizona so it is based upon the motion papers just for clarification with regards to the false information that's been raised i'd ask you to look at that first second in terms of what the facts are from what we know from the record the defendant gave the correct last name the correct date of birth and i believe a social security number that he gave the officer was off by one number i think given those facts the fact that you can determine who someone is by the last name and date of birth it raises a real question that there may have been driver had been arrested mr going to comply with their orders had exited the car upon the officer's orders and answered their questions the police detained him merely so they could run him on the computer they had no authority to detain him for this purpose  look at the pads and the motion to suppress that was a it was a general motion to suppress evidence which was made by trial counsel where she set forth the facts as she understood them to be and then