thank you and good morning here on earth may it please the court my name is rebecca abel i'm a deputy federal public defender and i represent mr glascock in this appeal of the district courts denial of his motion to suppress i would like to reserve three minutes for  here the district court found that officer gormley of the oxnard police department had a reasonable suspicion to stop mr glass for trespassing when he came upon mr glass and his friend mr on trade as they were walking out the door of an apartment complex there is a body cam video here which i think clearly depicts that officer who only accused the man of criminal activity and mediately before the man had any chance to do anything suspicious expressly telling them that they don't quote unquote they don't belong here seconds later he detained them and mr on grades mother arrives she tells the officer she lives there and that mr glass and mr on trade were visiting her mr glass to mr on trade say the same reinforcing that they were there to visit mr andreas mother but the officer is undeterred he wants proof that the two men are on the lease which of course is not necessary as the man stated if they were there visiting attendants and us would necessarily be on the lease and the officer continues to question mr glass and mr andre but now he transitions his questioning from those questions potentially related to trespass to the defendant and his friends parole and probation status and that really becomes his sole focus he runs a post conviction status check really looking for a reason just search these two men there are two places that the court can reverse here one is that the initial stop which i did not believe was supported by reasonable suspicion and then at the prolonged detention which again must be supported by independent reasonable suspicion either of those points in time provide independent basis to reverse in this case factual determinations made by the district court and the standard would be clear error however as you know and so if it is the factual determination is clear we have to take the that your client was startled as a hesitating motion as of evidence of an intention to flee leer he was startled clear the last person he want to meet with with police parent from the video it was not there because the footage wouldn't a given the viewer the same perspective that the police officer good to look down and saw the wreck that's a fact and the last is there's a very high crime area didn't rely on his own expertise the old previous track to man lived the crime the apartment in the areas surrounding them were consistently among the top five problematic areas the officers also had agent authority again back yesterday and did not recognize the do inferred vacs by the all of that you're saying won't meet a standard or review for reasonable suspicion you know and i think there's two responses that that i would have to that st in so far as the video evidence is reviewer is for reasonable suspicion and i guess i'm trying to figure out how it is i good based on those facts which i don't think are clearly erroneous come to a different conclusion applying the reasonable suspicion law to these facts and now you're saying no good make it why i think that the facts really boil down to just those three things  know there's one more they didn't recognize the two yes you're i don't i don't believe that can have any legal weight here where it be over there that have some facts on the last absolutely i think the fact that he didn't recognize them just am on well i think the agent authority really is just supplementing the high crime area and we can use a high crime area in fifteen different ways but i don't think it adds anything to the analysis that is there so is your argument basically that  you have a suspect that gang member in a high crime area who appears startled when he is confronted by the police that those three things assuming that those are not clearly erroneous don't add up to reasonable suspicion yes your honor that is there some case that is there's some case that says that i mean i know there are cases about each one of those things individually was there some cases as those things electively gone out of in a perfect world all cases of look the same but the totality of circumstances means that every different be sufficient so gang affiliation is has not been held to be sufficient high crime area has not been held to be sufficient and express leaving nervousness on multiple occasions by the th circuit has been held to be insufficient so the question is whether if you're not going to each one of the cases you are two men walking out of an apartment complex there there is not substantial additional evidence to add to that to change the circumstances we're talking about twenty six seconds in which the officers see them seems like there's evidence on the record that so if if there was reasonable suspicion to investigate him for trespassing that would make it reasonable with find out their names and where they live it seems like there's evidence on the record that the other record check isn't that isn't that that was the parole d probation part of the check the prolong it was that they shouldn't have been able to do a name check at all what they have or exercise was unreasonable given these facts your honor i'm not saying it's  your honor and i want to talk a little bit more and give some more context to the higher crime high crime finding that there was in this particular case i think it's important just to look at particular types of crime that were plaguing the gateway complex now it was tr who that woman was at that point officer gormley i knew however that there were individuals in the complex he called friendlies friendlies who would provide support and assistance to individuals when they were being confronted by on course officers and so what he asked what the man identities are he asked them where they live he asked them for their address and he even asked mr on trade you know what is the address of the complex and what is the unit number of your mother lives and and as also when we thought he didn't know that what what the woman who turned out actually to be his entree into mr henri's mother and to church to determine what whether what she was anxious threw out the question here is did the officer and was it reasonable for the officers to stop them and was it reasonable for the officers to run their records check and the chairman wasn't reason for the officers to run their criminal history check and on the record check point in particular which which i think asked the opening argument make clear kind of is the crux of the defense authority to make the friends so you're saying then that the background check was just a normal thing that happens in every one of these kind of situation based on proof i'm i think that it would be reasonable to do this in most sounds folk or you have a reasonable suspicion is foul and i think that that's quite clear from him all people in indicates that that checking somebody's identity is an accept terry stops that's what the proposition that himmel stands for and that i get that he will make clear kind of why it would be reasonable to do that during most reasonable suspicion based off when you still have reasonable suspicion and i do want to emphasize that identity checks and the background checks that they ran and again this seems the value of these background checks is important what hippel in question recognize is that a background check and identity can facilitate the termination of somebody has a record of  that is only relevant if you can actually run a criminal background check to check whether somebody has the violent criminal history and so given that those circumstances given the president i don't really think that it was an reasonable under these circumstances an officer formally to run that checks that he's dead and again what the circumstances are is that you have to appear in gang members in a high crime area late at night coming out of a complex with heavy duffel bags and i  are just i think in response to clarify the defense's position i don't think there's any question that they had a right to ask mr glass mr under their names the question is whether they have that which christian stands for they were looking for and identif james and only because the they did it was reasonably related to that question who is rick james were they able to conduct the background check same thing here will says that that's a statute requir disclosure is fine the question is whether you can go beyond that and conduct a full scale records check of individuals when you're looking to find out whether they are visitors to a property and the mother of one of the two is there saying that they were here visiting me if i