have convicted of three counts two firearms counts and one simple possession of methamphetamine use a fifty two year old gentleman who will spend the remainder of what's left of it ninety seven month sentence incarcerated  complied with all instructions by the police cooperated with them to the full extent of his ability and then was placed under arrest as he exited the stolen vehicle as instructed to do by law enforcement i think what we have here is the true primary issue is the fact that the kansas city police department has admitted on the record in this case that they have a policy in place that whenever someone is a passenger in a stolen car they are going to be arrested for shooting a participant in the stealing a car i think that is a person exception to the th amendment that the suspicion that the person who they are arresting actually committed the offense that there is probable cause to arrest in every case individualized to the person in this case there was no individualized approach he did everything he was supposed to do the only information they had at the time was that he was a passenger in a stolen car they had no information that he knowingly was in a stolen car and otherwise in other words of nd degree statute under missouri requires him to be unlawfully a passenger that he knew it was stolen and he put himself in the car anyway and that just does not exist in this case a stop or able to detain in this case mister brooks fifa rarely so that they can ask them on the scene question that will allow them to create or or to measure persuade themselves to the contrary if there be correct method on doing these types of fears would that approach apply to any other kind of criminal statute is this are you arguing sort of for a stand alone this is an unusual statute or just seems like there's a lot of criminal statutes that require some well motamed they do require intent and i'm just curious of how you would think how you went in to dissipate this would apply across the board with law enforcement officers when they see a particular crime being property or the drugs or whatever but that very constructively the courts have said just because you're present wherever this stuff very valid doesn't mean that you're involved in the criminal act itself they still have to be able to prove up at the house of the who was maybe under surveillance by fully and based on his entering that house police arrest for being in possession of whatever stolen good knowledge and i don't think that in that type of situation where he does walk into how that he has knowledge or that they can prove knowledge or even suspect that he has knowledge of all the stolen goods that are in the in the house  fed is that in sort of question car and they get brinks down on the ground in the car speeds off and that's basically the facts right yes doctor are you claiming putting brookstone on the ground is wrong can they not do that i think very to circumstances yes they could and probably here i have mentioned that they could detain him for purposes of inquiring whether or not he was involved in the criminal activity or could they not do a pat down search damn point if is that they felt no threat from mister brooks so you're you're so you're claiming that all they could do is argue him put him down on the ground ask him if he knew the car was stolen and he said no no i did go i guess i didn't i would think normally you could do a pat down in that situation and which order and then of course you also got the issue with the safety exception would allow him to ask if he's got anything dangerous need it minute he had a gun well i think your honor that we should not be in the business of creating bright line rule that every th amendment caught just based upon the court david wagner united states there were two things in this case that gave the officers probable cause to arrest mr brooks for the crime of nd degree tampering under missouri law  apparent voluntary presence in the car and the nd was an inference that officers can drop based on the unique circumstances of automobiles that the passenger in the automobile is engaged in a common enterprise with the driver that inference in the from the stability of it comes from the supreme court's decision in maryland versus print which frankly i think is odd but in forney of the issue of probable cause in the case the supreme court held in pringle that when there are three people in a car that contain significant quantity of drugs enough for distribution that officers could arrest all three of them even though case the car itself so the government would encourage the court to find based on kringle that just by virtue of the fact that mister brooks was voluntarily in the car officers that probable cause to arrest him that's not to say that would be sufficient to convict him or probable cause is a much lower bar it requires only a substantial chance of criminal activity not an actual showing of such activity one to address the kansas city policy that kansas city police department policy that was testified about it trial as i understand mister brooks his argument is it's that because the police department had a policy about arresting and people in vehicles and because you can envision you know a crazy situation worse than usual situations where there would not be probable cause to arrest somebody in a vehicle such as if someone was caught in bound and gagged in the trunk the existence of that policy unlawful that's simply not the case this is just another way of saying that an officer's subjective intent is irrelevant to the issue of probable cause in other words because the officer thought he was operating under a policy and that's why he conducted or effected the arrest that that subject isn't and means that there can't be probable cause we know that can't be the case from the supreme court's decision in rent friend versus united states in that case the court explain that subjective intent has no role to play in ordinary probable cause th amendment analysis and we also know if you just lay out the implications of a rule that the policy matters in this case what if what if the stuff that occurred not in kansas city missouri but across the border iraq i don't think it's true and we do not agree the government does not agree that he was arrested as he acted in the vehicle no one told him he was arrested at that time the fact that one or more of the officers may have had  intent to arrest him is is irrelevant again the officer subjective intent so long as it's not indicated for the suspect is not the matter all the things the stuff that the officer took ordering mister brooks to get on the ground ordering him to put his presumption with another i think policy of the police department that if the if the car had not been well if it had not been reported stolen by violent means they couldn't pursue it so i understood the record to mean that there's this car there was no evidence it had been stolen by a violent means so how did it how do you square those two things a car that's not been stolen by violent means but then this notion that that mister brooks could very the from the video mister brooks did not seem to be engaging in any kind to or furtive movements that would suggest that he was dangerous at that moment is that is that fair that the officers i think said they were not concerned about that so really then is your argument on the ability to do the pat down and is that just simply because it was a stolen car the stonecutters the primary thing i don't think the officer testified that they were not they were not worried about a gun they did testify that he complied with their instructions that's true but the fact that someone confide in the fact that the charges that ought to lead a reasonable officer to infer that he may have gotten out is equally to try to  try to stop them from pursuing the car and may have been intending to use a weapon in furtherance of that plan and i would also note that it was dark at the time and he was wearing i believe what appears to be a hooded sweatshirt in the fairly over that so there was a real possibility that underneath those clothes he could have possessed something dangerous and we know he in fact it was clothing was was thinking up to conceal the gun that we know he actually had and like to  address the point that there there can't be a bright line rule based on the type of offense in other words that the sort of the offense that the officers are investigating cannot by itself give rise to reasonable suspicion of someone being armed dangerous that is simply not true and we know that it's not true terry and terry the the three men who the cleveland police officer suspected of planning to conduct a daylight robbery did not do anything that would indicate that they were going dangerous they didn't display any weapons they didn't they didn't do anything violent it was the fact that the officer suspected that they were going to conduct the daylight robbery that gave him a justification to papen down  same thing in this case it's the fact that the officer suspected mister brooks of being involved with a stolen car they gave him the justification to the fact and they also knew that there had been a very tense standoff with the driver it was dark outside the driver came in in the in the briefs that i'd like to address briefly is the question about whether because there were so many officers and they all had their guns drawn and whether they actually had cause for concern to for their safety with respect to absolutely don't need to take a risk that that that they would need to win a fight in order to make sure that they can secure the scene can control the situation and protect their s y just going back to that to the reasonable suspicion issue in in judgment roy's question about the sequence of events i think if you play out the sequence of events and i thoughts on this briefly but to be at every step that the officers took was consistent with what officers are permitted to do under carry at least up until the point that they found the gun and once they found the gun even if this court were to find that by virtue of voluntary writing voluntarily riding in a stolen car is not a probable cause it's absolutely once they found the gun they knew he was in this bill and they knew the driver of the car had fled and they knew that he had a gun in combined seven i think those things certainly give rise to probable cause see that my time is expiring so if there are no further questions the government would ask the court to affirm all right thank you for your  you think your daughter st of all with regard to whether or not gold is the controlling president in this case i do not believe that it is there you have an entirely different circumstance the passengers in the vehicle were taken out and when the car was searched and only after the drugs and the money were found were they then placed on a route because all of them were within distance of where those guns and  took place prior to any reasonable suspicion or individualized suspicion as to mister brooks another thing i would like to point out as you know with regard to policy and the question of whether or not kansas city missouri can