lable suspicion to stop and detain mr jones shortly after hearing a call for shots fired we believe because the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion the lower court should have granted mr jones motion suppress the evidence retrieved from that stop and that his conviction should be reversed in this case your honor although the government as we said in our reply breeze seizes out a number of what we submit are not his box we believe that the only relevant facts here that the police possessed at the time they encountered and ultimately stopped mr jones were  call for shots fired and mr jones being in the vicinity of the call for shots fired this sort of a vigorous debate about whether or not he was swiftly or walking  at a normal gait if you well but we submit that that even that fact is viewed as the government contends that he was walking swiftly still does not give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion  well it's not just the government's contention it's the district court's finding it is your honor and as i indicated i think this is a case where the body warrant camera is in evidence it's part of the review and make a decision on that it's not subject to interpretation i think in th amendment land we tend to use particular verbiage walking briskly blading furtive gestur fired you know the government again you know there's some debate about how proximate the science isn't terms of of pinpoint exactly where those shots were fired but as  indicated again if the court is satisfied number one that shots were fired which it should be there's no debate about that number two that there's a there's a proximate blocked that where those shots came from we don't have any debate about that and again if you look at those are terms so you're down to one block and the officers arrive one to two minutes after the shots are fired and it's late at night so it is we indicated a lot of these facts we believe are completely innocuous and don't you know the facts get cited in cases of being relevant to it to a particular determination it is late at night but we don't believe that that fact is particularly jermaine's against shots were fired it certainly is late at night if there were if there were one hundred people on the street maybe it wouldn't tell you very much that jones was on the street and i'm certainly not i'm certainly not saying that john's presence in the area isn't of some value of course it is and the fact that no one else is there is of some value but when you look at the totality of the facts does this give rise a raise want to kill suspicion that mr jones is the person should fired shots and that's where we believe that it does not we obviously are relying heavily on the lane but if you look at officer turner's testimony  what what she indicates is that they heard the shots fired then went to the place where they believe the shots were fired they found john's proximity to the location but not at the specific location and what they say to your honor is that he's walking swiftly that's when they st see him so i do believe that this is a circumstance where if you're taking a doctor with fact and trying to make it look as if it is somehow indicative of evidence of a crime which mr jones walks and turning into something that it does not which is evidence of mr jones committed the crime because the circumstance that would make that suspicious is of his change the speed of his gait i see the police and i begin to walk more quickly what we have here is the static speed if you will mr johns walking at a particular speed again you know briskly really believe that someone of a term of art in a loaded term in the repeatedly and you know you point out well he's wearing headphones and the district does acknowledge that and i said kind of our knowledge that actually she pretty quickly when he turned and took them out realize that he was wearing headphones but th the point that your brief doesn't really contend with is that it was reasonable for her initial a because he was wearing a hood to not necessarily assume that he was listening to headphones but to feel like he was not responding to her so that was a you know it's like a speeding up fact to have someone walking and ignoring a police officer calling right but i think again when we're looking at the totality of socks wearing out songs and he does take them out which would lead any reasonable person to conclude i suggest that beast couldn't hear because he was listening to music what's your comment on exactly when the terr international ten doesn't matter does it under ran the officers intent in the fact that she said i'm planning to stop this did doesn't actually there either way and whether it's a flop is to as you say consensual questioning i think you know i think it's whether or not a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave that they're being stopped i don't think the government argued below nor in their moving papers here that this was something less than a terry stop and b no but my point is yeah but you didn't hear a lot on the notion that she had formed a decision to stop this individual before the the observations you know before he was for example on responsive to her calling out but that's neither here nor there isn't it well  know where the facts that are saying by the police are on a on a moving scale they're gathering more information as time goes on and so their intention is relevant to show that it was a stop because rather not i intend to stop someone i believe is relevant to the ultimate inquiry about whether or not you know they thought they were being stopped and then obviously the language used here is stop so it's not you know it's not a debatable proposition that mr jones believes he was d being stopped obviously when he's being surrounded by the officers so we believe that you know when she st stop to him and he complies and takes the headphones out that's when we have a th amendment  and this was in a fairly precise location and mr jones was proximate through that location and exactly how proximate i think is a little unclear i think the opposite but perhaps half a specific longitude and latitude at a particular point it's somewhat of an area but i don't think that that's particularly germane you know we're prepared to concede of course that the police had reason to investigate a crime out of she general fairly specific area where the crime had occurred certainly saw mr johns proximate to that location again sixty or ninety seconds and a lapse and he wasn't at that p precise spot where they believe the shots were fired at the time they pulled up it was about half a block away but his presence near where a crime certainly have occurred we submit is not sufficient to support anything than to suggest consensual encounter as opposed to what happened here which was a th amendment that the city ali have about one minute left for a bottle and i'd like to reserve that with the court's permission to do police have stopped him on the theory that even if they didn't know or have suspicion that he was the shooter he might have been a witness well again i don't think they could have they could have made a request and then that was are not sedated him today have done a terry stop on that theory just to question him hey we heard about shots did you see anything i don't believe so your honor i don't believe they could have stopped him under the guise of the th amendment stop anything above as i said a consensual encounter with some it violates the th amendment and character because cherry extend to witnesses or because there wasn't a reasonable suspicion on these facts that he might be a whip i think but more of the latter than the former your honor for the same reasons we believe that it error and see that in fact officer turner was hurrying after basically running after the defendant on the block so that is some evidence very support for the district court's finding and nd in terms of where the video shows the defendant that's he has turned the corner onto trenton place that's not where they st see him so there isn't any video of him to dispute that the testimony of officer terms and with respect to the to the walking away the i understand the defendant is disputing and saying this this is not even if you are walking past this is an attack or least a reasonable suspicion it's a commonsense inference from human behavior that whoever was involved in that shooting the shooter  would be trying to leave the scene quickly and would not be trouble be trying not to attract undue attention so it's consistent and just a rational inference to see somebody walking quickly away i think they might have been of law it's a  as to believe your point officer turner wasn't sure whether he was wearing headphones it was a possibility but it was also a little bit odd that he wasn't responding to her calls for it and shit and she's allowed that's a sitting standing almost three smoking a cigarette or sitting down and they were and was the only person on the street would there be articulate particular to them i can have a pronounced suspicion ninety seconds of the shots and here is the only person outside on this block in a residential neighborhood where you'd expect residents to be inside a levy yes fifteen pm standing out there it's a possibilities before taking action under terry i i note that the fact that neighbors called in to report these gunshots makes it more likely that they that the gunshots were coming from outside because you had neighbors on either side of  thousand five hundred block of thirty play southeast who heard these gunshots so so i didn't follow that i know you made that argument and for example if somebody were leaning out a window soothing and then pulling your head back and closing the window neighbors would just as likely have called in or even if the shot took place inside a residence people can hear at i guess that that's think it is that the hypothetically responding to that it would be more muffled and therefore people on either side wouldn't have heard it and therefore wouldn't call them right you're out and yes there are so you're not responding to the scenario in which somebody leaned out a window and shot someone out of doors that again under under terry they weren't if they didn't need to rule out all possibilities there were other alternative possibilities here the person of the shot a shooting could have been outside on the street  and the person could have gotten the farms and sped away that's about that there's been a little bit of confusion about it in the district court back and forth i don't think they are say was able to answer this question but terri doesn't authorize a stop  a stop on those grounds but the district court didn't didn't agree with that proposition we haven't argued it and certainly you know it's it's possible that the defendant was a was a witness or a bystander but it wasn't it was necessary to rule those possibilities out there is reasonable articulable suspicion based stock is the location the precise watre shot spotter heard the shots almost immediately after the shots were fire the only one there and walking quickly away to believe that he was involved in the shooting and sensed that he wasn't just a witness or a bystander and you're not arguing that this was a just a they just required a minimal level of objective justification to make this stop and we believe they had it so i guess it was one other question if i may about the the shot spotter and the timing it it seems like in this case the appellant has conceded that it was a very short amount of time between when the shot itself was fired and when the police officers showed up on the relevant block but i wonder just as a matter of process this was not a case in which the officers themselves sod the shot spotter or heard the shot spotter through the app it had to be conveyed to them through a dispatcher is there any way that a defendant in such a case could pro but the length of time that it takes or you know how how much time to actually pin down not just what we have here which is the time between the officers getting the information from the dispatcher and showing up but the time between the shot it appearing on shot spotter to the dispatcher and the dispatcher communicating it out you can't there the position of the dispatcher or the people who set the system up so you have to bring in expert m r i just just to be candid your honor i i'm not sure i imagine that you could and i don't necessarily wan shot spotter work but that just didn't happen here and on this bike or with this evidence we have an immediate alert an immediate response and i know too just to support that the fact that they're already on scene when technology is the shot spotter getting more and more accurate with respect to the precise location where the film was far i i just  i don't there was the evidence in the record here was that the shot spotter provides the exact location and needs x number of gun shots with respect to that take technology that wasn't developed in the record i can direct your honor to case from the th circuit which is which is a case from last year that discusses the technology a little bit more more full simly but what i'm i'm not really aware beyond that your honor you don't know whether it's getting more and more accurate i  walking in a residential neighborhood and somehow making that seem as if it's evidence of a crime the government didn't mention you know this being a high crime area although they argue that in their brief but again that is one of these here but again that's not really here our net here nor there but i think the government uses this verbiage to take and knock us facts try to string them together to make it seem as us this is evidence of a crime redundant encounter instead of forcing their authority upon him and making him stop we believe in the absence of articulable suspicion about actual facts that are so mr jones committed a crime there was no basis here you're honest we would ask the court to reverse the findings of the lower court in the conviction thank you and i recognize mr lawlor that