of a weapon a point and he said no that's the test the first point is that no one stated any sort of believe me he had there's no testing at all second any potential threat from the first was eliminated person and that's and that's a necessary step because it's very first terry search is an exception to the general probable cause or apartments and narrowly drawn exception and there have to be narrow boundaries that it's only what is necessary to find that the person is armed and layer layer clothing it's just that they have to try that first first and if they're special circumstances they might not even need to try that risk just that those circumstances were present here it's a good prophylactic measure to make sure the police have two weeks try as a they're it's more likely they're going to be in her purse but it's a hard body purse you're right if the person itself is cannot be frisked if you cannot feel through or in the hague case the bag was full of heavy metal don't have a right to search a person or their possessions for identification they could charge for with obstruction of police officer if you refused to give it that's not at issue here she gave consent and revoked it as is for legal right as the u s supreme court has that's the closest fact we get say anything stating that they were concerned about a weapon but their testimony in addition that makes it clear that this was a generalized concern when asked he didn't bring that up and that's what he did to b s specifically interacting with defendant in fact that was instead of sergeant ray the person who decided to handcuff her because he saw her reaching for the purse after he instructed her not to do so so the fact that one  r might not have enough knowledge to support a search even though that officer was the person who in fact more mysterious does not invalidate what the other officers may have known or fear with respect to whether a defendant may have been armed but testimony to the grand good that he had reason to believe that she was are presently armed and dangerous to him i'm sure i do not recall the specific testimony in the record but at least  would like to rely on the facts that there is always the implicit belief based on the decision to hit her at least in part for officer safety purposes now the defendant claims that  concern here was that somehow they might get hit by a car but the defendant also points out that the officers intentionally separated her from her purse while she was being handcuffed so there is the decision by the officers to make sure that she is unable to hurt the officers because she was handcuffed and because it's awesome especially an equally important that that she is separated from that purse which was according checked for weapons so this was the intent of the officers was to protect themselves from possible attack so you're saying they don't even have to testify that they were afraid for their personal safety and wanted to search her purse to discover whether or not a weapon was to that well the officer testified that he had handcuffed her and that their wits that that the purse was taken away from her right and brain testified that she was walking into traffic they were afraid she was going to get hit by a car and that they might get hit by a car because they were practically protect her safety from the traffic but the concern was for safety for everyone not just for the fun and it was not i believe that it was safety from the traffic not from a weapon wayne never testified he thought she had a weapon and  searching christianson the defendant's reaching for the purse despite instructed not to do so would be a simile and articulable facts that would make it reasonable for the officers to hear attack have which is officer should not have to take unnecessary risks and performing there has to be students what about the fact that it's the middle of the day there are three officers on the scene and they're in the middle of a street with traffic flowing on both sides and she's ninety pounds and five foot three well the facts could be better for the state in the sense of that the passengers had outnumbered the police sort of the passengers had physical characteristics that made them more dangerous to the well in this situation that there were additional facts that crossed officers here which leads us to defend this excited state which was unusual enough rather than just being typical someone in the presence of police officers maybe nervous so you capes keep saying that the officers were afraid they were in fear but no officer testified that not if your honor is correct not specifically testified to that but the actions that they reasonable support action that the police officers could you just pony in a little bit more on there and here's what i'm getting are we to consider whether the officer thought there was a ten percent should make some sort of amalgam of the officers different experiences even though they're not talking to each other if this court is willing to entertain that suggestion that it should also it should also link up brains initial