proximity and this one's using the government concedes for there's no intervening time turning a profit to intervening circumstances and we don't believe there's an intervening circumstance either it and i see your point i think it does go to third part the third problem but it also goes for the second song to it because i think in straight from mean on the third prong we're looking for flagrant misconduct i think i the language and there's different language in that opinion but i don't think a mistake about reasonable suspicion qualifies as flagrant misconduct so that again my question is no what specifically is there and maybe this is more directed to the third problem which you haven't addressed yet but you know that seems to me to be a fairly high bar in order to to to hit that third issue or strike right and i think your point's well taken but m the facts here were such that he was he would get up to go around behind and come back it's rainy it's misty it's not the sort of environment where one would generally leave cover and  draw essentially draw attention to yourself through movement i think it's a good question your honor i think the problem with the moving around in a bus stop is that it's a cold night and so on best that's  think because he could be moving around to stay warm we don't know and i think the inquiry into reasonable suspicion looks for the exact opposite of ambiguity objective in particular as addition to now if she was trying to evade police conduct what  would have done is the first time turn around and ran away but he didn't do that he can round he was staring at officer and no doubt about it but anyone would have scared that officer him he was screaming and a third party name wire year while you're here he was clapping his hands very loudly commanding everyone's attention so i think it would have been more suspicious had mr are not at officer here so i don't i think there constitutional violation and in going to the question of whether or not it's purposeful flagrant i think the issue is that no reason the law officer would have thought that they had a basis to detain mr lowry under the yes and i think so the question becomes they have this war and in the government's argument as well they have to arrest them because they have the war and that's true they do have to rusty because there's more but that doesn't mean just because you and this court held that no reasonable officer could think the probable cause existed for this war the specific point so the good faith exception did not apply ok and i think this isn't good faith this is street doesn't turn on good faith it's not the officers good faith that that it turns on there has to be some remoteness that that separates it or and when they use the term  or in intervening circumstance and the intervening circumstance would be locating the warrant and once the officer sees that the person is wanted regardless of how they got to that point a constitutional violation that is of the nature of going over the line of reasonable suspicion should that succeed after leaving a house and why leaving the house was suspected of drug activity and why do they have that suspicion it's because there's been a test right and why else do they suspect drugs or activities going on there they been there for a week and they see people coming and going coming and going and show a short time and it's all commensurate with drug activity the only mistake made by the police i think it's a good faith mistake in not clocking in when i understand that they are running saturation patrols at this bus stop to try to prevent crime and the police need to do that so but they need to do so with that in the boundaries of the for them and if they don't i think there's a real i think judge thomas used the language fishing expedition and if there's a fishing expedition i don't think the word happy helps and let's say the police come to my house in the middle of night without a warrant chick down the door coming in my house and they do a record here i've got him there i need to maintain control the situation now that he may have been wrong about reasonable suspicion suspicion but it seems to me you still need to point to how that's flagrant because i think i think there's a reasonable explanation for what think the police arguably had more basis to stop the than if you have a defendant who's walking down the street in the jones case and he's intently looking the police cruiser driving down staring at him he's also clutching something in his hoodie pocket of a sweatshirt and there's all this testimony at the suppression hearing how clutching something means something bad is going to happen something violent it's rick it says sorry just conduct because i don't think that it's reasonable i think it's purposeful when you are saying you come here i'm detaining you you know bhangra have liberty but i don't know why and nominate and even on reasonable suspicion issue i'd like to highlight a couple of things factors in consideration of reasonable suspicion i think are important for the court to keep in mind in evaluating the circumstances and the district court's decision here to deny that motion first reasonable hunch yes your honor i can see that we agree that mere hunch is not going to do it but i think here what's required is articulable facts of the officer can articulate but he doesn't have to be able to say exactly what crime he suspects is going on it's enough to say that there is a criminal act the council if you read the district court else and says she would basically comes down to that he walked away twice while keeping his eyes on and this was in the context  oh yes your honor your honor but i think that the i don't think it falls short of the low bar i think that the articulation from the officer here and it has to be weighed i think in comparison to the intrusion would be here in this case was minimal come see here and sit inside this bus shelter twenty five yards away but i do think that the district court covers the facts but puts them in context in fact in this report says if you have to consider not just the walked away twice why officer and those are factors that this court has held maybe they're not sufficient on their own but that there are factors that it officer can consider when it comes to reasonable suspicion that the opportunity or taking are between to evade the officer bringing yourself to a position where the officer can't see what you're doing so obstructing the officers and then in the context of this case which is already been discussed today that it was cold it was january twenty eighth in kansas city it was windy it was misting and the and the  defendant left the bus shelter the relative comfort of the bus shelter to go outside not once but two different times and it would be the i think the course of events is also important here the police cruiser pulls up and that's the first time that off hand sees the defendant leave the shelter and go behind the sort of while he's watching the police cruiser after him gets out he begins his interaction with mr parks in the defendant comes back around into the bus shelter but then when the officer looks and makes  contact with the defendant he leaves the shelter again and goes behind it and this is the point at which the officer who testified in fact that he had seen people doing similar behavior who were later found to have committed some kind of crime is iffy in terms of of the strength of the suspicion and the legality yes your honor but that's not everything that the officer the other reason the officer was there has been referred to here is that he knew and had been that this was a in a place where high crime had gone on not just high crime sort of in code high crimes but in fact specific kinds of crimes the officer testified had gone on its place so there were violent crime fights in disturbances issues with officer with him in a car who can help out but he's by him self there are other people around and he was trying to handle a situation with mr parks that was escalating and that was creating his attention or dividing his attention and i do think that goes to the attenuation issue but i don't think it's all just on reasonable suspicion i mean the standard is what the standard is and i think i just heard you say that generally the officer would not have believed or would not have conducted series but in this case he did and that's the part that i'm having trouble with  yes or no and i can see that i can see that issue and i i do agree that it goes to in fact once one factor in this case that makes it actually a little stronger case for the application of the attenuation to doctrine bench three because the court in that case said well how is the officer negligent in this case it doesn't rise to misconduct it's not flagrant but what kind of what did he do what was mere negligence not do a walk and talk not to approach a pedestrian here we actually did don't have i think that kind of negligence that suspicion if it's not in the officers is not required to rule out all the and that's an explanation certainly there are innocent explanations here but that's not the standard the standard is taking all of the totality of the circumstances together not the criminal activity is afoot and in this case the government thinks that that standard that standards and in the fact that you don't have to rule out innocent explanation and it is sort of baked in the reasonable suspicion houses reasonable suspicion terry stops the fourth amendment acknowledges that sometimes you're going to lawfully stop someone who suppress the evidence because other two factors are strong so i think in considering the other two factors was there an intervening circumstance yes in the intervening circumstance here in the intervening circumstances riverbed both very similar in that case there was  prior evidence for why he was stopping that person and that's what made it independent and what made it intervening cause we have the same tired of being here with the warrant that was intervening is not in the warrant that the officer even knew was was was there and didn't have anything to do with the interaction that was going on at the bus stop so i think because intervening my colleague says that the factual difference in street considering the fact that it was a drug case of the fact that there was a stronger perhaps factor maybe supporting the analysis or the investigation that case i think actually gets i think that that's not a piece of the analysis attenuation comes up it is coming up because we know that there wasn't enough suspicion or or probable cause to justify what was done for that's why we're talking about it anyway that's not the government's position here but for the sake of  argument to the fact that that case was involved house where there was maybe drug transactions going on and this involved a bus stop i don't think it's just i don't think it's a relevant point see now if it's the point is when he found the when he found in stop the defendant and saw its stopped mr lowry solely for the purpose of determining who he was so that he could run a check in his computer if the officer made a mistake here i think there's a reasonable one it government's position is in fact that he didn't make one but in any  event it was a close call if you if you missed the reasonable suspicion because there wasn't quite enough there it was no more than negligence from the government's perspective and i think that brings us squarely within the context of the what the not flagrant misconduct i don't think that there was anything like a fishing expedition does talk about the possibility that there might be systemic or recurring police misconduct i don't think that there's any evidence in the record that would support that that in this case there's some suggestion in the reply brief that maybe the purposefulness analysis goes to the act that the officer did i think i don't think that's just talking about every arrest is purposeful in that sense or most everyone is going to be the officer is going to be purposefully arresting the person like they mean to stop them they mean to connect with various up i mean they connect the arrest i think the purposefulness when it one way street is talking about purposefulness is a question of the purposefulness us to the violation is the violation so the fourth and the if there was more than i do think it's important to recognize that flagrant c of misconduct is not just the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause that's what the court says there and i colleague mentioned jones i just want to highlight i don't think jones is that close to what we have here in jones there was no the defendant watched the officers but there was no flight there was no evasion there was no attempt to move away from the an incident going on that could turn violent there's an easy and innocent explanation for stepping away while keeping your eyes on the situation but not want to get too close yes your honor i think and i think that would be it would have a different case here if all that had happened was a defendant had watched what was going on i think that would be a different case in the one we have but the one we have is one where the off the defendant who is already twenty five yards engine of the office yesterday added fact of the officer not being able to see it but that has to assume that the purpose for going behind was to avoid the officer's vision there could be any number of reasons the one would have made that action without attempting would have the purpose of being unseen by an officer who's engaged with someone else at the moment and then choosing to be seen again and to deal with all innocent explanations for the behavior yes there are innocent explanations where he doesn't have to we can see the totality of circumstances not just that one factor in the officer it reasonable explanations are used on to rule them all out and with respect to yours question your honor i think that what the explanation i think might be is that when he left the first time then the officer engaged with officer with mr parks and then he came back around that's my understanding of what happened and then when he should be addressed is it appropriate for us to address it or were we man appropriate to the district court to take a look at that issue but i do think that typically this quarter's a quarter of course we're not the the problem here though is that it goes back to the notion that the facts obviously you've got mr lowry there looking at tyson bars the officer feels threatened by tyson parks that think it doesn't give him a basis to detain everyone at the bus stop and you see this rationale by the by this officer hand on the stand he says well he was wearing bulky clothing it was a cold night bus stop and you're not doing anything wrong besides walking around i don't think that's a basis to stop someone especially when the officers justification is that he's fishing for street crime i mean he could have said well i thought he was engaged in child porn and wire fraud and i'm having a gun all those theories become so complex that i think it becomes evidence that it is back to