sat down and he raised his we create per se automatic companion role in homs and get around that question thank you jack stacker so do we necessarily need to if we agree with the government here do we necessarily need to invoke an automatic companion role or like any other  amendment case don't you simply look at the facts that this particular case presents and i i understand your point of view that your client there is nothing unusual about your client's behavior we're i don't know that we necessarily look at his behavior in isolation we look at the entire set of circumstances that were that was facing this particular officer at the time of the actions that unfolded and your client was in fact trailing behind someone who the officers were trying to serve in or rest for in on someone who they knew was a violent felon who engage in a number of violent acts and so they were obviously concerned about that so the felon then takes off running the cess attending the chase by number of the officers involved in this arrest leaving one officer behind to deal with two individuals who had been in the company that are of of of the felon in this case so i guess my question to you is what is an officer to do in that circumstance when faced with that situation two individuals are up a fleeing felon her colleagues go to chase down the fleeing felon and she's left with these two individuals who officer safety it was entirely reasonable for this officer to simply detain not prisk but the tane mr wetherspoon and so she could more specifically protect herself and get control of the that you don't contest the ability of the officer to detain mr wetherspoon but you you contest the subsequent search but the subsequent search was the result of a question by the officer as to whether or not your client was armed and the district court found that with respect to that statement that response that was covered by the public safety exception to miranda to admit the state and not the weapon and once she received that answer that in fact mr wetherspoon was armed at that point she was entitled to obviously frisk and search and retrieve the weapons so it seems to me that this case rises and question and then and then you actually brief detention you saying yes or no she just says she could ask the question honor good morning and may it please the court chief justice gregory yes there in this case we have a an interaction with the police that involves two components of the court has already recognized an initial brief detention and then a follow up search or a frisk for weapons the government would ask this court to find that that initial detention in doing so that offers act officers acted  detaining mr wetherspoon for their safety during the minutes that it took to effect the arrest of his companion mr espinosa once mr wetherspoon has made a statement then to the officers that he armed the government is asking the court to find that that provided justification for them to go further and stress for search him to retrieve that weapon only talk about the reasonableness of the initial detention we're talking about the th amendment which as has the overarching theme that officers actions must be reasonable and what the officers are doing in this initial detention is essentially securing the scene telling the people nearby to stop sit with your hands in your hair your hands in the air or in other equations or other circumstances to keep your hands where i can see them hold still for a few minutes while we do what we need to be honor so in this case there is i would argue evidence that mr that links mr wetherspoon and mr espinosa and it's not extensive and it's not developed as you would expect because it occurs in the moments before the officers are involved here but they do mr wetherspoon is seen leaving the hotel room with mr espinosa and they're seen walking to the parking lot down the breezeway into the parking lot espinosa might be in and that while that was going on that they observed this group coming out of the room together and going to the parking lot and your honor i would suggest that th companionship here does provide a link between isha though does the government argue then that did create a person a automatic companion your honor i do believe there is a judicially created rule here and the district court recognized it and that it was a it was the political rule however it's important to note the district court did not base its decision on the automatic rule and this court does not have to endorse that rule in order to rule for the government in this case what the this court could do is simply find that the officers acted reasonably under the th amendment in briefly detaining everyone which opposing counsel seems to agree was allowed and that once that is done mr spinoza's response to the question of who's got a god and provides them independent reasonable suspicion under terry vs heigho that he is armed and dangerous and gives them that right quick frisk  hembery to the ground as they were yelling you know get on the ground get on the ground stop nearly so one of the one who weapon drawn immediately absolutely honor the officers came into the situation will see that's the danger if you go  companionship look at the scenario it's just people always you can't look at how the scenario played out they really didn't have a weapon it really work and whatever that means that if you take it so far if someone has reservoir for them and you see somebody with them and they run and others don't run you could put a weapon right in their face right in their face and nested difference between sometimes life and circumstances is going to rule in this case and any stop is going to have to be reasonable and justified at its inception and justified and and his scope and duration and how it's carried out in this case safety in going into the situation if this court were to adopt and indorse the automatic companion rule in iraq by upon it in in supporting this case then that would justify the stop as well as the search but if the court does this court does what the district court did what i'm asking you to do here today and simply say that there the dangerous circumstances and the factors they knew justified a brief detention a securing of scene just as when an officer stops a car that he can secure all of the passengers even if he's only stopping them protect the car protect violation and just as if he has no information that the passengers are any danger whatsoever that detention looks i think is going to have to be driven by the facts and circumstances of the case i'm sure there are limits to how the police can go about detaining individuals in every case whether it be because they have a mother this is  suspect in these two recent incidents the shooting that involved multiple people as well as the burglary that involved criminal accomplices that police knew it existed but didn't know anything about all right what does that have to do with that innocent person  out you are respectfully i think that would put the officers in an untenable situation to knowing that these two individuals are with mr espinosa and chasing past them turning their backs to these individuals and putting themselves in a situation where they have no control over people that have a connection to some of that they're trying to arrest him because that puts an untenable situation i believe your honor that it does justify a securing of that immediate scene a brief detention  that each case needs to be taken on its own merits and facts what makes this case a little bit odd is that although they were dealing with someone who they alleged to have been a violent felon they were serving their warrant or driving while impaired that they're serving the warrant on has no history of violence than the officers might very well act differently in that case and we might have a different result betting on the circumstances don't you there absolutely are on our i would still argue that there would be reason for officers to take some control of that scene but maybe in that circumstance it looks more like you know holding your hand out and asking everyone to stay still while they serve the arrest warrant and less like everyone running in with guns certainly is as you no ed you know this is the totality of the circumstances case where reasonable ness is the ultimate standard and the just the follow up the problem i have with this case is if we if we were to suppress the evidence in this case and say that the act of the officers reasonably you know one of the poor purposes of doing that is to deter officers from future allege misconduct but i it's a circle and see what the deterrence valley would be and suppressing evidence in this case given the situation which these officers found themselves in the split nd decisions that they had to make in order to protect themselves in the circumstance absolutely your honor at the end of the day you know as you noted and having seen the video that's been provided the court recognizes that this was a very dynamic fluid situation the court record in the district court recognized that things happened very quickly this was a dangerous situation a although we do want to protect the rights of every individual who is even in the people who are with mr espinosa we also want to make sure that a brief limited detention be allowed in order to provide the safety that those officers need to do their duty that's the powder keg problem we have in this country in terms of is very is very important case because this would be used under non violent  and you can come up and put a gun in someone's face south kill you if you move and that's the basis what that that's what the problem people read it was no you can do it then you certainly can do it for a misdemeanor thousand in which it applied this automatic companion rule that there are ultimately going to be circumstances for a blind application of a person a rule they're going to be scenarios that becomes on reasonable and unjustified but this rule that the court has created does in capsulated recognize the balance and that balances that on whole when you're dealing with these circumstances it is reasonable for officers where they have an individual or serving in arrest warrant on they have a known companion who is not just a companion not just someone who is there but a companion and someone who is in the immediate vicinity and capable of causing him them harm that balance is going to fall down on the side of allowing the search in the press because there's reason to believe that they're in danger not of course of this as the court just noted there are going to be circumstances at the far edges of any judicially created rule in circumstances where that will becomes pushed to the point where it may break and things become unreasonable and certainly that's true in this case however we're within the heartland of circumstances that justify this type of in brief detention and then frisk both because of what the officers knew about mr s been as a going in the extensive information they had about how dangerous he was how he was known to commit crimes with  associates and also having seen mr wetherspoon not just being in the same room when they came in but coming out of a hotel room together with them walking with them together and heading toward that car in the parking lot that they're all going to together in this one so because you have that extra information here that safety concern the safety concerns it puts not only independent justification for the officers who've done what they did because they needed to secure the scene and because mr espinosa told them that he was armed but also puts this case kind of in the heartland of the cases that justify the creation of this rule in the st place which is the balance that says we need to protect officers we need to give them the tools that they have not run rampant over people's rights but when we're and not just to walk up to someone and feel unsafe as we had in the black case and have a justification for search but when they're there executing job safely and we've asked the court to likewise affirm the decision of the district court and ruled that the officers did act reasonably in this case both in the initial detention and then after mr espinosa said he was armed in retrieving that weapon unless or further questions that's all i have began going back to arizona versus johnson absolutely it police were to stop all of motor vehicle for traffic stop police can ask all prompts this question the search in this case was a result of the response to the question are you on the right so the issue is whether or not taking issue with the asking of the to at that where are you saying that the question itself the question do you have a gun was an unreasonable is servers that what