any reasonable person in search of hernandez's shoes would not have felt free to leave hernandez invited two police officers to his home to talk about something that happened the other day while he was still on the phone but this officer and his partner twenty four officers arrived uninvited from several different jurisdictions in marked and at the time none of the officers of the warrant for an end as arrest he was not doing anything illegal and there was no probable cause yet five or so officers all guns on hernande he was handcuffed patted down along with three or four other people who were outside the building and then in the officer's own words detained in a squad car consul what about the officers testimony as the shoes have perceived in this situation so we're not challenging whether the police are justified in doing this but what we're saying is hernandez did not the sense go to the police station there's no evidence of that sorry i mean  really didn't mean to interrupt you right in the middle of you're saying i don't i can't speak for anybody else i don't have that great of a problem with the fact that two different district consider the motion that that he had an f what is that one fifty and then he saw and they thought half one fifty at the location of the incident shortly before the first shot so i don't have a problem with the pedal down it's night time and it just three to five other people off it my problem is that nobody knocked the defense or the state asked what the conversation was with the defendant before he was put into the car and i wanted you to address whose response believe that was to put that evidence and what the defense was trying t burden of point put on the most of the putting in what was said after because that is going to sit com here i'm willing to talk to you i know you're looking for me sure come talk to me and comes outside my thought when it comes out that established the defense put on evidence that hernandez was taken somewhere he did not consent explicitly to go they didn't that was the defense did not put on something that he didn't get think there was no evidence that he consented or he didn't  i would like to say i want to come out and i'm going to address or at the ineffectiveness argue that salute is that nobody asked me and as if he wanted to go to the police station he was not given the opportunity of arranging his own transportation and nobody told him he was there was a language discrepancy your difficulty here who had the conversation with regard to whether or not there was a consent to go into the vehicle that's my thing right and that's that's that's the r innes indicated when he got to the situation that he did not know why he was there and did not want to talk to police that's not the question the question is the conversation that took place before he went into the vehicle yes now when he's at the station not you're here and you want to speak to us and he said no i am suggesting that that answers both of those questions i would like to address the burden question that is on your mind and remind the court again you have a  work by the state point that i'm hearing distressed about well as you point out your honor let me ask you this just since the first issue that we have to determine is whether hernandez told them that he was not in battle and they called him a liar they continued to interrogate him and tell him that they had witnesses who could identify him at the scene that they knew he did something they pressured  consenting to a vehicle search and a gun residue test threaten to take a polygraph exam and a d n a test they told him where to sit and then where are his requests for counsel in these circumstances  and that he was never told that he was free to leave which was also true of this case so the evidence in the record establishes that her name is not free to leave before she went to the station or after  the state of the burden of presenting evidence  if you find that it was defense counsel burden then she was ineffective for failing to do so where there is an abundance of evidence in the record supporting an argument that hernandez was not free to leave additionally counsel register her motion facts relating to what happened at trial but failed to argue them during the hearing and failed to support them with further evidence it's likely she felt that the overwhelming show of force was sufficient to demonstrate an involuntary detention regardless there was no reason not to submit this evidence when it could only benefit her hand there are no further questions your honor we were asked to reverse the trial court's denial of the suppression motion and remain for a new trial or alternatively find counsel ineffective for failing to introduce the plethora of evidence that's available showing state's attorney on behalf of the people the issue before this court is whether in view of all of the circumstances presented to the trial or whether went to the states and there's not a word in here as to whether he was asked to go to this day those words specifically of course were never illicit not not in the words close  justice and fairness the testimony at the trial or even the pretrial graham between lieutenant worries and officer lopez was that the defendant had invited them over to his house in order to heavy conversation certainly a reasonable inference can be made that he was going to have a conversation with the police officers about something those specific words that were never in the set but a fair inference and a common sense in france would indicate that he was counsel was the theory that by sheer numbers that this motion had to be granted the defendant never testified we don't know how many police officers arrived at what time location where if the defendant s are who's burden is this and this notion it's always the defendant's it's his ultimate burden and he didn't establish anything in the four corners of this document in that motion to quash and suppress or that he was arrested in front of his home with no probable cause it wasn't that he was arrested without probable cause of a police station that is litigation that was never addressed because that wasn't a theory that's a whole new theory being floated before this court today which is wholly improper and should not be addressed the four corners of this document was that he was arrested by sheer volume of number of officers that appeared to take him to the police station and his invitation is expressed and to take action which has never been in dispute and defendant was unable to add her illicit facts or in the bois to sustain his motion defendant could never meet his burden and based on this record cannot ask this court to reverse this decision based on all of the facts that are missing before it today the facts that we listen to before judge fact rather clearly show that his denial of the motion was properly made there was no evidence to establish that this was a district  car with nobody there to sit with him and eventually a plainclothes police officer throw him to the hanover park police station during the transport during which he was on puff clear answer to this question if we found a valid arrest about ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present this alternative theory that the defendant is presenting snippets and bits and pieces of record in order to cobble together the theory that was never flown to the trial it's not that the defendant is able to establish that he was under arrest that the police station he can't do that based on the structure it was never a litigator that's an improper thing that the defendant was never a threatened at the police station or simply no evidence to based on what it is before this court it is clear that there is no evidence that he was arrested at his home there is no evidence that he was threatened by the police and in fact this contradicts any notion that he was intimidated or threatened  defense counsel is attempting to use or make inferences based on evidence that isn't before the score and was not before the trial not the trier of fact and basically wasn't before the suppression judge either that's an improper thing kind of a little nervous about it and they were clearly trying to get a much bigger picture there isn't it point in the record where the defense counsel even concedes you know there's thousands of pages of documents and interviews the police were interviewing we absolutely have a body and again we don't know what point they suspect the defendant if they just are literally bringing him in as to you know when's the last time the saw heard you know anybody that want to hurt her they don't assuming they would tell everybody something like that that's not that's a that's a questioning that's no way could be considered intimidating or threatening but is an eternity considered a suspect the time even though we don't know we had no idea he could have been failing to present a motion on an alternative basis that he was seized at some point before his confession is wholly like the fact that these facts were never litigated and this court can't engage in pure speculation or conjecture to address that claim that it's a new theory on appeal and certainly we can't seem to trial how so incompetent for pursuing the theory the pretrial theory that she did because that's a valid claim which is being addressed today before this court so defense counsel today is consenting to the validation of that claim of pursuing that theory now that he wants to pursue an alternative theory that some motion for another day in another court and other say in an interview wrong or during the course of interviewing and this is a better safe than sorry than anything that they haven't provided miranda rights and he would have said something that would have been put here with his record that's been provided to this court it's frustration with the record i actually i'm frustrated there are so many questions that are unanswered but we can't engage in conjecture and speculation in order to answer those questions well steps are not before us and those are not claims that were litigated and those claims are not before this court now there is no claim that the defendant did not understand his miranda rights that's not an issue before this court and it was never an issue below as far as you know the defendant being read his miranda rights he was never threatened into submitting to a gunshot residue test i would like the court to refer to page one twenty four of the redacted statement when they explain to him what it is like he talked about having a b b gun sometime earlier and  if there's a holster it's not mine i don't know how it got in my truck and he actually says and i told him let's shut up and do the tast on page one twenty four now earlier when they had asked to defend it and we search your car no search was done yet they found a holster in this truck so i don't know how that transpired either there's a lot of questions here that i can't answer i wish i could but there is no other than this defendant was ever threatened at the police station was he confronted with facts as their investigation unfolded of course he was i'm sure every witness they had or anybody they had interviewed was confronted with the police are trying to figure out who killed this young woman who executed her car that honestly don't know that's a great question i suppose this court could do on several different things but the bottom line is the court doesn't need to do several different things is that we don't have to necessarily reverse we could use if we find a valid arrest we could use remand for january you could and in this way we're not disturbia you cut there are several novel alternatives i suppose that are available to the court  that the score should affront based on the facts of this record the only issue before the hearing trial was whether the defendant was arrested in front of his home and there was absolutely no evidence to support that motion the decision to deny the defendant's motion to quash and surprise was absolutely correctly decided based on the facts that were listed before that judge and based on the record before this co this court has sufficient evidence to affirm that decision now was seen in all those questions which i completely understand there is certainly a sufficient basis to affirm based on the record for the score barring any questions for those reasons cited in our brief and that was today the people respectfully request this court affirmed defendants and action for the first degree murder victim  because he was involuntary involuntarily arrested and counsel actually cited some of what happened at the station to fail to follow up on presenting evidence of that she thinks and so less that he was photographed fingerprinted and otherwise processed she also less of his photographs ness and there is abundance of evidence in this record of involuntary miss both before and after his arrival the station in terms of before as your honor observed there has been there was no testimony  i think the evidence in the record showing the impact it had on hand as is this he called the police not for to talk at his house is then arrives shortly after at the station and indicates does not want to be ther question is what would a reasonably innocent person in this situation given everything that was happening rival the officers the guns being called on and the handcuffs being put on by the way to the police station if they switch school also transfer him into a different squad car that's correct case and every one of them are taking to the station there's been no suggestion that those people initiated contact with police and that's if that were all the factor in terms of what hernandez would have thought because he sees all these officers arrive and everybody outside this building is taken to the station by with the spot he was any different for him to rock away or say i don't want to go with would have simply been futile at that point in terms of the transcript the that's that's the detective's version of events that indicates he was not free to leave happened at the station which is within me up your view of promotion as it's written