any real factual disputes here he was walking rapidly down the street the police didn't stop they came back some walking again at that time he was paying attention to the speaking and they couldn't understand him i think that's kind of big testimony was at low volume was a rap it was by you have you have no problems with the officers actually stopping their vehicle and then approaching nobody this person go that was that time and it's not just case like illinois versus wardlow you know because he just moved backwards slightly there was no flight here there's no flight i mean he wasn't state why it was necessary to remove the backpack in the course of what would have been initially simply a field and he just said he did a protective hat down his very conclusory language there wasn't anything out that them that reasonable suspicion requires some criminal activity and what criminal activity was identified by the officer in the course of this test none whatsoever no it goes back to just gor point that was maybe no more than a hunch but let's say let's say punches is at the low end and then you at some point you get to reasonable suspicion this reasonable suspicion at least require an identification of some criminal activity and yes to be based on some particular facts articulable and yes pacific article for this was an area high crime or drug area was and they did say that but there's no so why of the people just to be clear when the officers for stop the car that is not a stop they are entitle to get out of the car and even ask him his name but as soon as they got out of the car the defendant began to act  moving about throwing his arms about speaking without being spoken to in a way that they couldn't even understand what he was saying there was something that was wrong here and to expect the officers to walk away at this point would be unreasonable so then they asked what we expect as the officers at this point to identify that which gives them reasonable suspicion of criminal activity what what what what did the officer say about presence of officers only when the officers pretty much burger the encounter in a disorderly manner well then what you're saying is that the officers didn't have the right text at their car because then that is really a good where what we're talking about is whether what they observed reach that level of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and i'd like to know what your argument is that you did with the officers were in fear for their safety and why you came here for their sake because he was acting bizarre and they were in fear for their it was that he was moving his arms about he was speaking incoherently when they asked him to put his hands on the car a reasonable request he wouldn't bet your way out that that's what i thought you was hoping you'd bring up as well because i'm not so sure that that's a reasonable the course of a field interview putting your hands on the car sounds like assume the position which you know doesn't leave any other step to undertake but the search of the individual why why would the officers asked him to put his hands on the car because they're in fear for their safety and the fear basically so fear for the safety came up before or before and he was asked to put the hands on the car correct let's see your hands i mean it's a reasonable re when you're in fear for your safety that somebody is going to do something you don't like we began to think and it simply be please keep your hands where i can see them as opposed to i want your hands on the foot of the car because it's just an easy way of keeping track of the hands it's an easy way it's a reason everybody individual is if the individuals putting his hands on the car you know mind images that the officer standing behind the industry will as opposed to in front of the individual which might in fact make it more difficult to see where those hands are given that the officers behind him get given the chaos that was described here with this defendant to request him to put out his hands on the car which would be a very simple way of keeping track of those hands that will fade or going to do something that's going to hama so so he didn't comply to the officer satisfaction and he was hank he didn't comply it off ok he didn't and by then the backpack is off the defendant yesterday and the defendant is secured is his is he certainly doesn't pose the risk of possible harm to the officers that he might of getting out of the car did not stop the defendant he is soon as they got out of the car he began to act radically and then they stopped him but the act of getting out of your car does not mean that you've stopped him well if you're met so tense you what i believe it was more than just up anger it was he was incoherent he was flailing about he was acting in a manner that threatened their safety and a police officer in this situation should have a right to do something to protect their safety another justice and this is how court and the first district shared a sentiment one time in a case and i thought it was pretty compelling the record is this that in a public building this is a set no this is a sentiment it's better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six and that sentiment applies here the goal of the fourth amendment in suppressing evidence is to alter police conduct that we don't like here's the problem that the problem with that is every case that comes before us contraband was recovered one of the cases where a stop and frisk has as they describe in new york city is a matter of common place common place maybe in those areas where there's i never conduct traffic in criminal activity and in ninety nine percent of those cops and frist nothing is recovered so that no criminal proceedings ever ensue but aren't the constitutional rights of those citizens nonetheless in fridge and in order to protect those who constitutional rights of those who are improperly infringed because there is no criminal activity we have to sometimes that are the police from using contraband that's recovered from someone who doesn't that the goal of the fourth amendment is to alter the conduct of the police officers this he's in a sense the officers are creating their own criminal activity on the part of the defendant by having the subject of fear of safety so that they have a right now to to perform that path if the defendant have pulled out a gun and you know these fourth amendment cases that are really done on a case by case  i can't give you one off the top of my had are that's and as for the backpack in the search of the backpack they did have it off of him they had had it him down if they were going to let him go would it be reasonable to just hand  back without just doing a minimally invasive head of the back it was pretty reasonable of them to just do that because otherwise what was the point of the first get down if you were going to pick on the back but it wouldn't do either stand them being weird that doesn't equal a fear that does not provide a reasonable fear for the officer safety he didn't make an attempt to hurt them he didn't