please the court fred rally jr for the government well you're on your own thank you the government respectfully suggest that the district court suppression ruling was wrong in two respects first the district court the government believes that the strongest factor is the defendant's own actions when the officers approached the car in which the defendant the sitting the defendant reese behind his back and extended his right arm as far as it was they would go that was what the officer o action in light of what had gone on before that is to say the driver's possession of marijuana the driver's furtive gesture which the that might that might also be suspicious so it would depend upon the facts but the further just a couple with a false denial of ever having even worn a jacket that's certainly suspicious and given you know the fact is that the officers knew reasonably support the conclusion that the defendant had stowed drugs or perhaps a weapon given the close nexus between drugs and firearms for example but given what the driver had done given the character of the neighborhood and it's important to stress that that fact of the i mean it seems to me you're advocating sort of broad based rule that if someone makes a gesture reaches into their pockets reaches into a bag scratches their back that they're entitled to search that's probable cause and then that seems to me a better untenable to me nothing wrong with that that's that's not the standard that the government is advocating at all in this in these circumstances there was a specific reason for the officers to believe that when the defendant reached what he was doing was hiding drugs or perhaps a firearm not just any thank you and there would certainly need to be some concrete facts for the officers to draw an inference about what the person might be doing probable cause of course deals with probabilities and not certainties but it can't just be i think that there's would also be reasonable and it is an objective standard for the ark to conclude that what he might have done is hidden contraband as well i think that both of those are reasonably probable but it would certainly not do just to get back to your honest question it would not do i think to have  a generalized sense that some crime was getting what was being committed i believe that the facts here the support something a bit more concrete at that and that's why the government's admits that there was probable cause to believe it was contraband in the own the jacket and denied ever even having worn the jacket under the court cases those kinds that crimes of just claim are of any interest in property but can relinquish objectively speaking a defendant's interest in his property and that's what the government believes alternatively happened in this case now that the district court suggested in its ruling that the defendant biased by stating that the jacket was not person upon hearing those words would think that the defendant wanted to disassociate himself as much as possible from the jacket i thought i thought the testimony was that the defendant didn't say he wasn't wearing it but that was the conclusion that the office officers declaration the officer said the defendant said he wasn't married but you're absolutely right that the officer did not have a direct quotation from what the defendant sat as opposed to what the officer said or the defendant's initial denial of ownership of the jacket i see assumed that she had given consent that they couldn't get in the car and that the only way i could get in the cars of this is track and slices and it's not my jacket well whatever i was thinking but i was he says it's not my jacket it doesn't really matter if i don't believe  sure you have the fact is being the sister was arrested for possession of marijuana after self but a small enough amount that she was like he was in a car late at night in a high crime area he made some sort of movement he took office jacket he was nervous he was on probation he denied ownership of the jacket this looks suspicious and in fact the burn founded might be sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion but i think it falls far wasn't being forthcoming with them about ownership and jackson that the officers actually saw the defendant drop the suitcase and take three steps in hostile and the agents confront confronted the officer with the fact that the keys they had found in his