good morning your honor is a me please the court my name is margaret fair enough from the federal public defender's office appearing on behalf of the defendant and appellant angel flora's and i would like to reserve two minutes if i may at the end of my argument for the bottle you know as the primary issue in this case is whether the two l a p d officers involved had a reasonable suspicion to stop in jail floor it when they stopped him on the night in question the parties agree on the fact that they rely on to make that stop they were the make incident is that the incident that had a car connected to it well it was i'm not sure it makes a difference but why is that the case the incident that the calls were about where the shooting correct well there he say he heard a shooting he said that he was working security at four o seven west th street he didn't see a shooting he heard it can be heard in the area of six inmates and so he was not an eyewitness right so he doesn't know what he doesn't know where the shooting occurred he doesn't know he just heard so point point eight miles so in other words coming back to the basis for it can i ask you about the call that identifies the car because i don't quite understand where we get the idea that that caller knew that the car was involved in the shooting why isn't the car just trying to escape a dangerous area where shootings are happened i think that's a very important point your honor the reliability of this call put aside this is sumit made tonight when let's assume he's credible he's reporting what he knows he doesn't know if this is involved he says the car that i think was the sitter it departed it trailed me indication that there were others that the district were rising threats on this floor the other three as i understand it don't identify a car no doubt they identify somebody on foot that the st one identifies one male hispanic person eighteen to twenty four years old dark pants are shirt and the nd color identifies two white people one male one female dark shirt dark shorts walking in one of the calls that it's said that a car is heard speeding away but that's not there's no other information about that  information how many cars were on the road at two in the morning your honor this suppression exhibit eight is video of the officers driving around before the stop there are several cars that go by you know me now it's a two in the morning it's not all lot of cars but there are cars you know every few seconds if several minutes passed by the officers there was no testimony about the traffic or any there were that's the only information is there any testimony and i don't think so i looked in the record for this but i would make sure i'm right you know i could envision the helicopter pilot say we got up high at two in the morning and there was only one car with and that's i did a one mile area but it was this one that's not record let me finish let me finish but that's not a record well what it actually is in the record is the transcript verses one highway in the martinez case between winslow flagstaff and where the car was stopped i mean you have one stretch of highway you had one car going in the direction that the suspect was driving along that same stretch of highway it contained a person who asked the circuit cases you know one hundred and thirty miles from the scene no matter how where its cars are well i mean again slow down let us finish you can answer we have to ask the questions but in jock as the facts seem relatively close to distance time etc i think the after but it was coming right away from the area mr flores was reported going in a different direction from where he was found much further away so recorded and in that case made special note of the fact that the car that's true they do your honor but but i think in the martinez and jones cases they talk about make model and holler and theoretical possibility of being in the area is not enough i mean we has the car is right where the incident occurred high crime area out late at night same color but it's fifteen minutes it's the time let's let's get back to the th tip in this case to find the one from the people the guy who was in the car he said i didn't see a shooting but i heard some shots from somewhere way records not clear to me does he then get in his car he but he  fact involved that they would follow a person a potential witness i don't know the oddnesses is not a great argument for you because i do find the gun in the car later it's warm so i mean well  evidence your honor and the district court i think acknowledge that it was not part of the same incident that was involved here was another another act i want to contrast this case from cases where the same kind of shooting or some misconduct with a gun was actually found to be part of the same incident those are felon in possession cases where the possession is actually based upon possession during an assault like the officers come upon the person you know assaulting somebody with a gun and they say because we saw you assaulting somebody with this going here and a felon in possession that's not our case or we flores was not ever shown to be engaged in any kind of misconduct with a weapon is purely based upon that so that was for a for b other activities and i think the question is was that inextricably intertwined under his care in martinez with the stock in this case exhibit i don't think i can see through the back window as his actual front window is rolled down so you can't see that but there's a window right behind him and i i couldn't tell that that window was tented the government in this case is now indicated it's not relying on any description of the people and so if the car no you aren't and also i'd like to point out i don't think that the officers thought that the car had tinted windows either i don't think the helicopter the helicopter skirt certainly couldn't see if that windows were tinted and the officers never claim to have seen that they were tended so i don't think that's morning your honor send me please the court kevin reading on behalf united states you know i think i do i think it's important to beginning to begin with the ongoing i think is reason reasonable for the officers to infer that there was an ongoing of th and pacific it was not clear whether that call was made whether or not there was a contemporaneous directly contemporaneous description of the shots it could have been the shots that were made earlier than the th and pacific than the fourteen to pacific shooting finally there's another call contacted by the nine hundred and eleven dispatcher after having made initial call right so he called he initially called earlier yes that's right you know and so that he his call is not to say something's happening at two hundred and twenty four that's crazy call was to say something was happening in rough proximity to the possibly you just told me the times yes you're and i suppose that if you're at roughly ten minutes within five minutes of each other then yes i think that that would be a so asked to the st three callers in this case all turns or whether or not there's read in the post suspicion to stop this particular  you don't contend that because there was an ongoing emergency they could stop every gray car in the area i don't know so at what it what's the reasonable suspicion about this particular car the only description of any car comes from the last caller who says i didn't i don't see shooting you i just heard it so i decided to i decided to leave town i got in my car and behind me was a speeding speeding gray car yes slow down once i caught up caught up to here i believe so why does that give us reasonable suspicion that the people in that car having the agent issued a minor standing just based on my recollection of the of the call itself was that the security guard described that call for that car as coming from the direction of where he heard the shots and i think given the hour in which and i think that suppression is that at night i would respectfully disagree with the defense's position regarding what that video shows the i think the dashboard camera video shows that the traffic at two o'clock in the morning and safe and sound preacher was very light as assumed to be the case and so he he sees a car coming from the direction that he heard the shots he has enough time presumably after hears the shots to get out of his security post get into his car and start driving away and he sees a car coming from that direction that's let's assume that all to be true why what is the reasonable suspicion that the people in that car did the shooting nobody nobody previous to that describes a car that's two of them describe people not in cars somebody says i think they may have gotten in a car afterwards to point but that was when they say they may have gotten the car afterwards that was how bunch before that call though with the rd call somebody says i think they may have gotten into a car i believe that was one of the calls reporting shots at th and so if it ok that it's in twenty to ten to ten yes and he was at th street but i believe he heard the shots coming from the direction of six treat so approximately nine blocks have it in my brief that i think that that's not around a mile or not much more than a mile your honor and at two o'clock in the morning i do think that seeing a car come from the direction of the shots at a high level at high rate of speed at a time when there's very little traffic i think that the officers could reasonably infer that that car could have potentially been involved in the should the car just have been trying to get away from the shooting i mean which is in fact of the collar if that's possible and i don't want to say that it's the only reasonable inference to draw but i do think it is a reasonable inference that the officers would miss some of the officers were actually standing on the corner when the security guard left he got into his car and drove away quickly could they have stopped him you know i'm not sure if they if they would have a description let's let's put aside his description of the car yes they're just in the area and a security guard hear shots and he gets in his car and says i'm game though i'm going home can the officer stop in your honor if they were there as this is the area of the incident he is going fast he's leaving can they stop do think that if they're presented with a situation where members of the public are reporting and i'm going to do this it don't make other situations this situation i'm asking a very specific question all the facts in this case can they stop the security guard immediately after hearing shots fired i would i think that that would be reasonably i didn't hear shots fired they just got to three calls the security guard put out put outside the security guards call he doesn't make a call they get all these calls hear shots he gets in the car and leaves the police officer see him driving away may they stop him depending on how close they are to the reports of the shots and i do think that would be reason to stop and so then therefore into your theory they may stop every car that they see in the area of the shots car so may they stop every car that they see in that area you want to i think i think that the less information you have about the car about a suspects car i think that the more you the court would probably need to require greater temp and geographic proximity to the reports my difficulty in getting deal with it it would be one thing if somebody on the scene said somebody shot there were shots and somebody got into a great car and somebody later down the road says i see a great car now we have but all we have here are a bunch of people saying we heard shots and somebody later saying i see a great car behind me coming from the direction of the shots so do your due your argument that's enough is a two o'clock in the morning your honor with very few cars on the road i think it's reasonable for the for the officers to infer that that car was not just an innocent binder oh it's going to i'm wondering about this assumption that there are a few cars on the road so it seems kind of like a reasonable assumption but why wasn't it the government's burden to put in actual evidence of that like the hypothetical of the helicopter looking down i mean if there are only three cars on the road maybe you can stop all three but we don't know if there are all the three cars on the road in l a i mean maybe there are a lot of cars here i would suggest that the government did submit evidence the dashboard camera video that was suppression exhibit eight did show officer martinez's car patrolling the streets of san pedro in the believe in the fifteen to twenty minutes before the stop the defendant was made o'clock in the morning that there were very few cars on the road i think some of the side of the decisions that the defendant cites martinez and jones some of the one of the key factors that the court relied on and finding that reasonable suspicion was not present in those cases some of them it's like four in the description in that case was just a red car and i think that one of the reasons that the court is now pretty much a description in this case it's a great car a camaro or a challenger i think a great i think a great idea i wasn't that there's a great it's a great  it was going back towards the area yes your honor that's correct your the witness had seen it going away for speeding away from the incident yes or had you indicated that was a good reason to be suspicious of it now it speeding back towards the incident is that a good reason to be suspicious of your honor i think that it's not a reason to exclude that car from the the from in the office the officers investigation of ongoing criminal conduct i don't think that it is impossible to believe that the car  was going back to or to return home if it's possible mr flores did live in the area and so i believe the dashboard camera video does show that when he was driving with also lived in the area so that would have been a reason also around it if we believe that as the officers reasonably believed in this case it's an ongoing active shooter situation then the up the shooter could have returned to that area to engage in more terror targets or perhaps finish off the job that he already started i question just at the warm gun issue yes i don't understand how the government was introducing the warmth of the gun for anything other than suggesting that he was the shooter can you try to explain to me what the purpose that's not related to that is your honor i think in this case even if the defendant was not the shooter the fact that the gun was warm was key evidence and the key disputed issue in the case the defendant in his opening statement in his closing argument and during his testimony said that he was unaware that the gun was loaded if the gun was at the barrel of the gun was born that at a minimum suggest that the defendant had recently handled the gun which would suggest that he was a greater familiarity with the gun which would also suggest that he knew that it was loaded otherwise the other inference that the court could draw was or that the jury could draw is that he had fired the gun recently perhaps not at the specific locations where the shots were fired this was a case about private possession of ammunition correction in fact his defense was explain this suggests that there was an alternative explanation yes your honor i believe during the cross examination of the officer the defense attorney made the argument that the gun was warm because the officer had placed the gun on the hood that the defendant knew exactly how many bullets were left in the gun but the government did have to prove that he knew at the very least that it was loaded if the defendant had held and fired the gun it does suggest that he was he had handled a gun recently that seems like part of the i mean it does seem like part of the inference you're trying to use is that he must have been firing the gun which i thought the district court was trying to not let you argue so i just think this issue got kind of model that maybe i'm missing something that's that's possibly or i think that the district court did say that we could get into the fact that there was a shooting and that we were investigating the shooting i think that the limitation i think that we were the government was permitted to at least perhaps create the possible inference in the in the jurors mind about that at least that it's difficult to it was in or ruling i understand that it may have gotten a little bit muddled in the in the expounding of it and can you tell me whether a gun is loaded by holding it and i don't i think that the idea would be that if you had held it recently and handled it it's more likely that he was more aware about the contents of the gun if as the defendant tried to tell and during his testimony he had merely picked the gun up off the streets a couple of days ago and just stashed underneath his driver seat i think it's this it's less likely that he would have known about the contents of the gun however if you had handled it recently if he had had it in his hands it's i think the jury could infer that that's just a great analysis that is not correct there were other ways that the government could have shown that he knew there were bullets in the gun flora's was asked how many bullets are in there he said eight thousand four hundred and thirty four he said he knew it he was heavily impeached he testified at trial  about his knowledge that the gun was in the car you know there were there was ample evidence the government could have put in to show that he knew that the gun had bullets in it without showing that he was a shooter and what i think you can buy now with this statement that was improperly introduced in violation of the motion eliminate saying callers came out all over town and they described your car which is not true you put that together with evidence the gun was warm and the inference that he was the shooter and i think this trial really became about something else said to him about whether mr flores had committed a shooting and i don't think the district the only cases that address this kind of a situation where it's a make color model of a car and it's possible that it could be this year's car it's possible it could be where it was found in the time that's passed jack has beltin much as and jones reject that it's possible but that's simply not enough for a particular eyes and objective basis for suspecting a particular person or car and i also want to point out exhibit three suppression exhibit three the collar he speaks spanish calls twice and he says there are people running from the nightclub they're running and running and if they can call it in spanish he says they're at my door they're trying to get in now lots of people are running away from these shootings your honour's one of them happened to have a great car it's possible it could have been mr flores but it's certainly possible that it wasn't so