next case on our calendar this morning is united states versus  firmly identify themselves as law enforcement officers therefore the line of cases starting with the diary and baldwin do not apply to the facts of this particular case st i want to talk about the stop itself well august regarding the basis of the stuff officer healy testified that the basis of the stop was a defective a tail like however that goes against the much of the evidence that was already produced at the hearing of the government argued in their motion as well as their all argument that there was a dimly lit taillight the testimony from officer healy was that the taillight was in fact defective performing a fair means you're saying that the officers didn't identify themselves as officers right there's no credible evidence well at the clinical evidence is the testimony of the officers right well those credited by the truck were broken into the court that it was not credible test right but what contradicted that testimony and several things st that the government this one does testify that the taillight was in fact defective but the fact that a tail light was defective or not defective doesn't contradict whether the officers identified themselves as officers right that's that's a separate bit of information it was also testimony by officer healy that he had his badge she's made a chain with a badge police shield outside of his vest right so i would submit to the court that that testimony is itself not credible given what you're saying is that if if you if you don't believe i'm on the tail light and you can't believe the officers they're identifying themselves as officers even even the trial court did not credit the testimony of sergeant foley there was there was a lot i submit to the core there was a lot of testimony a lot of evidence in this case that was not credible officer healy testified about the defective taillight which is contradicted by dimly lit or malfunctioning light and then we move on to what what seizure occurred when either at that point or when your client sped off in the rt what we argued before the court was that the the witness testimony was not credible regarding the purpose of the stop basis of the stop but not as to whether your client thought they were police officers or not and he didn't think he was getting held up your argument before the district court was that that was part of it you're right i think that the the general argument in before the that court and before this court is one of credibility and all issues that touch on credibility we submit to the court are relevant in terms of why this case is not like a diary and not like baldwin you know the district court substantial deference on its findings of credibility absolutely  i guess that leads to what judge sullivan was focusing on and what in particular was inconsistent or shipmate that her findings clear there are three things the tell lightin question could not have been dealing lit the joint witness called by both parties mr solomon testified that he the day before my client was stopped for the repair job on the vehicle so based on his testimony either the brake light flashing we're not going to quibble over that if there was malfunctioning for some reason it could have appeared to have been dimly lit she addressed that the problem with that your honor is the government also called the witness who testified about the evidence from the from the government's own witness indicates that the brake light was fully functioning and there's your client fleeing at that moment and speeding off and having a high speed chase and crashing into several cars there after certainly if if if the facts of the court finds the facts in this case is similar to the facts in a diary involved when we don't have a th amendment issue it's our position your honor that the facts in this case are not the same as the facts in her diary and baldwin based on the fact that the witness testimony is contradicted by what we believe to be the reasonable and credible evidence in the case saying in what ways is this case different in this particular case we have sergeant foley whose testimony was not credited sergeant foley this is this incident took front passenger door and would not open while he test during the hearing he testified that not only did he not try to open the door but he never said that at the debriefing on august the th two thousand and fifteen we have in this case i submit to the court clear evidence of some significant credibility problems to the point where the judge did find that sergeant foley tried to open up the rear passenger do even know police officer he did not say that he could not confirm that because what she did was she based it on essentially the being that took place at the u s attorney's office and other facts and other factors surrounding this particular search so what makes this i submit to the court makes this case a bit different than dari and baldwin is the fact that it's clear in this case that the facts and circumstances leading up to the stop an arrest of of mystical tour was significantly in dispute but the initial stop did you saying that your client in fact did stop he did stop he committed no traffic infraction his light was fully functioning and he was in the car the two officers approached him one on the left one on the right off as he was significantly behind sergeant foley sergeant foley approached on the passenger side tried to open the door and there's diary and baldwin he did not but the issue was whether or not he was submitting to lawful police authority and what we submit to the court to this court is that there was no credible testimony that he was aware that he was either submitting or not submitting to lawful police authority in her diary the offices that approached the nec case and because of because the basis for the ritual stop was his contest to you contest it now or because he did not know they were law enforcement officers answer your st question i actually cannot contest that if the court holds that this is a baldwin or dari stop so we were actually saying is in order for us to get to the reasonable suspicion analysis we submit to the court that the court has to disregard the findings of fact made by the trial court that the officer clearly identified himself as a police officer as he approached the vehicle driven by my client so we can't even get to may please the court my name is jared schaefer i represent the united states of america on this appeal i did not represent the government in the district court below this court should affirm the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress for two independent reasons st as the court has already touched on under this court's decision in united states we've all been there was no th amendment seizure into the defendant was apprehended after a high speed car chase that dispositive ruling was not challenging the senate's papers i understand that is being called into question now based on  issues related to credibility determinations for several reasons that doesn't hold i think st of all the only testimony referred to by my friend on the other side is testimony concerning the initial stop under the analysis of baldwin and in the later where it is case that is simply irrelevant here the defend it was not seized at that point the district court was correct in finding the defendant was not seized at that point and his later actions provided ample probable cause for his eventual arrest and seizure well doesn't matter whether he cases it actually doesn't help the defendant the defendant is only seized in under the meaning of the th amendment if he submits to police authority if he doesn't believe that he is actually being arrested by officers then there can be no submission at all to police authority so it doesn't help the defendant in that sense interaction was at approximately two minutes so they could not have been far at all he was pulled over relatively quickly there was at least one or two yelps from the sirens as your honor pointed out officer healy had his his badge around his neck when he stepped out of the vehicle it's simply not credible that the defendant did not know that these were officers he also leaned out the window and shouted at the officers asking why he was pulled over and saying he did nothing wrong it's simply not credible that the defendant did not know these were officers and moreover this court give special deference to the district court's credibility determinations so that is a factual finding made by the court and it is not clearly erroneous it shouldn't affect our thinking on this case at all that one of the officers tried to open the rear passenger door while the vehicle stopped and kind of a surprising development without having consent of any kind no your honor for for several reasons the st is that officer fall or sergeant foley who was the individual who approached the car testified that he did not see the taillight which form the basis for the initial stop so to the extent that that plays into the defendant's argument here concerning the justification for the stop it's irrelevant that testimony was not relied on by the district court to the extent the court is asking about whether or not that was a constitutional violation judge really did not reach that determination but she noted that there was testimony in the record and there was evidence in the record suggesting that it was not unconstitutional other evidence in the record including photos of the vehicle establish that there were tented windows and there are other cases officers are allowed to open doors where they cannot see inside for officer safety purposes and and judge family did not credit sergeant foley's testimony in that respect to the extent of the defendant suggest that his testimony was not credible the district expressed similar concerns and only credited it where it was corroborated by other evidence in the record either way you're wrong in the rd reason is that even if officer foley committed an unconstitutional seizure by attempting to open the door nothing that he did justify the defendant speeding away terminating the traffic stop and then committing a host of additional traffic crimes including running a stop sign or red light swerving into the other lane and then careening into three part cars before attempting to flee on foot there is simply no basis for the argument that anything the officers did under those circumstances allowed him to commit those other more serious crimes and put the public at danger that's not light is your honour's a subsidiary issue even if the court reaches that the evidence is in the record establishes that there was a defective taillight there was evidence provided by the defendant by the way that this car had gone to a repair shop less than two days beforehand for that same tail light the testimony of the person who examined and repaired that vehicle said that he did not actually investigate the full cause of that issue because the defendant did not want to pay for him to examine the electrical issue underlying it he simply got a temporary patch mr salim may also testified that it was very likely that that issue would reoccur and that is precisely the issue that officer healy testify that he saw i understand there is some back and forth in the defendant's papers and below about whether it was dim or whether it was off but as judge failon noted that is irrelevant the issue is that there was a defective taillight and that is a basis to pull the defendant over because it provides reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop but again your honor all of that is subsidiary those core issue here and the core holding of the district court which is correct and not challenge in the defendant's papers on appeal open the door in order to deescalate the situation although she admitted that there was no testimony to support that we submit to the court that that the testimony of these officers was not corroborated by the credible evidence and this is just another example of that of course if the court host of the diary baldwin analysis that's that's a different story than  teacher i mean i think you kind of lose either way you do there's no caesar in which case there's no constitutional violation because he didn't submit to the seizure because he sped off before anybody got to search if if the coeur does not find that  been baldwin apply then that the normal the reasonable suspicion analysis does apply as and what is the basis for the stop why was he stopped what if anything mission they have as they approach the vehicle we know in this case is that there was no nine  baldwin that analysis does not apply obviously if it does apply then of course the course correct why doesn't it apply i think is it does not apply because this particular we we submit to the court that the the clear intent why this happened was because he thought that he actually looked very similar to a person involved in matters he was going to be seized right he was tackled he's on the ground but your client wasn't seized i mean they he's he stopped momentarily but then he sped off well the reason why that simile rather is that in that particular instance as in this instance this the police where this is did not clearly identify themselves as police witnesses and that's why at that moment he was seized and that's where and that's why the reason was suspicious analysis starts which is that there was no not which is why this case is different in a diary involved it was no nine hundred and eleven call there was no no no one was looking for somebody that fit his description no one was looking for that particular car there was no information about the tinted windows before he was approached by the police so in that sense this case is different than the dari baldwin mohammed and the other cases about persons leaving after