violated when surjit meal while investigating interdictions at the bus station in omaha nebraska which is just a few blocks from where judge draws a nice step she argues that the book so he didn't testify that it would he he was unclear what it could have been and again that's along the lines of the officer mister jones this case that he wasn't sure what it was again before the search happened before the touching and manipulate i'm sorry and i ask a compound question i deserve the answer but but my point is why aren't there more facts here in this moreno case that in jones you know th he said the magic word intrusive coming in that got my attention because this is a little different case where it's a blanket or a shawl or something i've looked at the that video but that's something like that and then she turns away and we have a case where we say a turn is enough for reasonable suspicion so so is it deferred or it's a complete outer garment like that and someone turns away and i believe she was trying to follow those instructions as best she could under under those circumstances so i don't believe the turning away was anything other than she was trying to follow the directions of sergeant meal and to take her attempt at following d his directions reasonable suspicion i just don't believe that's appropriate back to what i was talking about in terms of aquino though again that took place with  another law enforcement officer the infamous sergeant looter he this court again set out on page nine hundred and twenty five of kino set out clear lines as to what law enforcement should and should not again however how of how a package is kido sized package of drugs is different from a bottle that wasn't explained on the record but the officer in terms of concerns for officer and the officer was concerned that there might have been a weapon and that here there was no testimony about officer safety then it could have been a bomb it could have been a book and as soon as he touched it he believed it was a kilo package of drugs again their concern for officer safety here is nonexistent all the facts that everything that drew the officers attention was related to drugs again going back to hawkins and hawkins they were concerned about someone who they believed was armed and dangerous and he fled so it's understandable why immediately called hawkins showed up and saw the gun in his waistband you look at all the facts and circumstances in this case you have a little old lady at night in a bus station who is complying with all the directives of law enforcement there is no concern for officer safety based on the facts and circumstances of this case clothing whether it be a man's pant leg or a woman's blouse necessarily more intrusive than a pat down such searches best not the least intrusive means necessary to protect an officer safety exceeds the permissible limits over terri investigative investigatory detention there's no factual difference between going under a woman's blouse or an outer garment which is a blanket she was wearing as an outrigger i have argued from the inception of this case it's basically the same thing that this court has set out the framework for law enforcement to conduct a pat down that did not happen here the district court is clearly wrong when and when the when judge ross or said this was a protective  neither protective nor frisk and now you said did you say clearly wrong do you believe that's our standard of review on a factual finding i believe that again the judge said initiated a protective frisk and i do believe that is a factual finding not a mixed question of law in fact ok so be clearly erroneous stand i believe that that factual finding is under the clearly erroneous standard and i believe the evidence bears that out that it is clearly  the touching and manipulation of the bolt and she was highly skeptical of the claim that she might the officers claim that she might be armed and dangerous was reasonably us you know for excessive love it was a weapon when i was here it's under her clothing and it looks like a book though and that's a that's a very fair question and i think it's important to look at the context of if you thought it was a bomb that i'd i think it was that you know depending on the circumstances and the context in this case the important thing is that you know he was trying to figure out the recent truth that means in terms of what whites and i think he had such a low security place ok now i don't believe you discussed minnesota versus dickerson in your brief but one of your cases by i'm not criticizing you i do want you to address that the because it is the united states supreme court on subsidiary fact finders right yes that's right thank you and it's not very easily accessible because underclothing you know it really is about the denial of the end of the day that's the fact that creates this distinction in your world i don't get it that the defective creates the only bus station at th in jackson is two hundred yards from the douglas county jail there are police officers coming in and out of that facility within a stone's throw of the bus station every hour of the day turkey are just not a stone's not there in this case you've got a little lady coming off the bus answering all the questions of the officer there's just no concern that she's is armed and dangerous because what about the fact that when she was asked if she had any construction her body she denied it even though it was plainly vis i mean those are the facts she she denied it there wasn't much conversation about that from what i remember but she did deny that she had anything strapped to her body my suggestion is that that  limited down council we've had that are in some cases that a limited pat down it's a limited pat down to make sure that she's not or been dangerous but that didn't occur here and again the magistrate judge was highly skeptical of the claim that marina might be or dangerous and dismissed it outright as a viable justification for the touching of the boat and again this court is particularly deference to the credibility findings of a judge the judge russet her dismissed outright when  sergeant meal initiated a protective frisk this was not a protective frisk this was a search without probable cause and i would ask this court to reverse the decision of the district court in order suppression of the evidence