the authority of the rangers who conducted it excuse me to arrange to start my client a frame based on a remote deserted dirt road on the reservation i'm sure you're going to get to it but we don't have a lot of time  these things happened but between the time we had the briefing and the time we were around here on september fourteenth the arizona court of appeals way the end on the status of the rangers would you please are we suppose i guess you know we're kind of in this odd situation where anytime there's a state law issue where a state court has weighed in even if it's not the supreme court we've got to go with that so it says that well we have to analyze that with that as our foundation well two things your honor first of all the their statement that the rangers are not law enforcement is not critical to their holding and it clearly wasn't litigated if you look at the status of the case at the lower court it them as private citizens when they're outside the reach of the fourth amendment no your honor because the reason it's not a breach of the peace offense here and they would not be authorized as private citizens to conduct this stop in this case and that's detailed in our opening brief furthermore even if that court concludes their law enforcement officers that court clearly was operating from a different set of facts and i'll note that court is talking about rangers on the reservation and how do we know it's the same group of i police department so i think that there are different facts and furthermore even if one were to hold or not for law enforcement officers clearly there are government agents these are people who are employed by the town all of them police department the rangers are division of the police department they drive markets they drive market vehicles issued by the police department they wear uniforms issued by the police department they carry handcuffs this one carried a shotgun and they their vehicles are out fitted with after market strobe lights which were used in this case to effectuate the stop i don't think chavez i clearly don't i don't think chavez at all meant to say that the fourth amendment does not apply to the rangers both from the point of view of mr bay said his testimony which was quite credible he described completely accurately these very unusual rights aftermarket mounted low on the front of the car flashing strobe lights there is no way he would have known what those looked like if the rangers contradicts their repeated testimony that it was a deserted area a dirt road difficult to travel it also contradicts ranger ruiz who said i didn't turn on the lights and not only that there would have been no reason to turn on the right lights because there was no traffic in the person vehicle going the other direction and then just stop so finding supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed it was interpreted as a command to stop and a reasonable person would have interpreted flashing strobe lights as a command the stop was outside the authority of the rangers that's not controverted interestingly neither the magistrate judge nor the district court judge looked at the issue directly of authority to stop and it's implication under the fourth amendment from this court the cases that i've cited as your honour's know that there are there is no directly on point authority but those cases deal with officers making arrests outside of their jurisdiction if you read the pierce case you think that's not on point let me read you part of that language last in order for an arrest to be reasonable for fourth amendment purposes the arresting officer must bear probably cause and must be authorized by state and or municipal law to effect the custod authorized does violate the fourth amendment clearly as i already talked about the fourth amendment applies to them and there are good very very sound reasons why it should this is a growing trend to use these sort of semi requires the law here then they contacted border officials and your honor they stopped the vehicle and my client was removed according my client he was immediately handcuffed and then the rangers did call in to the police department and border patrol these are minimally trained officers i don't think they have this time but when they were kind of swimming around here to try to figure out the confines of their authority in order to fit into your argument they definitely don't have a that was unequivocal both by them and by some police officer are going to detain without stopping what they say that is they if they come across a car the driver is typically stop on their own because they get paranoid and then so they back in their car and drive away or its attention on foot if they come across a month but one of the major said yeah well if they run away they run away and excuse me we won't stop them excuse me you're down to forty five seconds i see that and i'll save that for rebuttal thank you you're welcome counsel morning will please report my names are marc fisher ministers to united states attorney in tucson i think the court can see why my initial argument before the magistrate judge was that no stop occurred in this case because the testimony under state or tribal law it's really the police department protocol which is the point of trying to make officer stacey mousers a police officer with the home odom office nation testify that in some instances they would ask rangers to only reason that they can't stop people is because the police department just has that as a custom and practice there is no state law that says they can't stop no municipal law and no law no rule of law because the practice in custom of the police department yesterday that's what the record reflects the travel that's correct your honor and i think that's how the case is that the defendant cites in the case that you are referring to piers that's how they're different from the case at hand is there you have officers violating state or local law exceeding stop and seize cars there's no record there's no evidence in the record on whether they're authorized under state or tribal law the to harbor a law enforcement officers well your honor at the time of the hearing i think i was hard instance that there wasn't a stop because the rangers just generally something they can do but if if the court were to conclude that there was a stop that it was reasonable based on first passing and there's no doubt in there's no dispute in this case that the whole no them police department can enforce the trespassing laws of the nation so if it i guess kind of what i've got to is that if you if you can see that these folks are government actors which i'm willing to which is the position i took before the magistrate notwithstanding chavez i'm willing to live with if their government actors and the defendant concede on appeal it's not raise in the opening brief at all that there was reasonable suspicion based on trespassing then what are we looking at here we have government actors to stop the vehicle we're looking to see if they were authorized to do so because this is a strange breed of government actors can have inspectors federal inspector do this i mean it's a federal officer has reasonable suspicion but a federal fruit inspector for the federal for the f d a stop the trespassing laws these rangers are employed by that nation in a quasi law enforcement capacity as government agents who are a stems from not authorized that where do we what documents and other words they have a lot of clerks that are probably employed there too and i don't think they can go out and stop cars so is there some line from the so called tribal police to these officers that is in written form or testimonial form there's nothing in the in the record as to their authority within the police department to conduct stops there's plenty of testimony as to their ability to detain and ok ok let's stop there and see this case i find to be very troubling in that regard if they can detain people i mean that suggests to me like if i'm walking around and i see someone and i can't stop them but they're there and i think hey you're not supposed to be here i'm going to detain you so i do whether with handcuffs or force of authority what would that be ok with for these people the evidence in the record your honor is that in that situation they would radio the situation in their own abilities department or border patrol and that receive instructions whether to detain these individuals but they can't stop that you agree that they don't have the authority to stop the ranger i agree that to an extent although as i said yes they testify that they don't make stuff to me they don't put on at the range they're not supposed to stop the equals because they're not mergence the vehicles which suggests that this policy is for their safety not because they are not qualified for their safety she also testified that the rangers are not supposed to pull vehicles over unless it's something like a major emergency if we ask them to do something like that then they might do that so i suggest the authority is there well you know i mean you're teasing authority out of very little i mean the thing the logical trains to is you know they have to have authority to do this otherwise the constitution doesn't allow it and i don't see anything that says they have the authority to stop to the contrary well the authority comes from their position within this and they basically are working  not really impugning you know their intent to get you prior to him to kind of investigate this the question is who has the burden to show the authority to stop well i guess that was illegal seizure and the fruit of the seizure ought to be suppressed and then the burden falls on you to do to justify the seizure while you're out of the defendant's motion and the hearing before the magistrate was based on reasonable suspicion the lack of reasonable suspicion you say that but then it was raised it was raised in front of the district court all the other issues in the district court consider this what i consider to be a side argument her main the main argument was the lack of reasonable suspicion about turns out of the main argument it unconstitutional it's unconstitutional because it violates the fourth amendment it's fine if the tribe wants to have extra eyes and give them vehicles and weapons and send them out but they can't then get around the fourth amendment  people aren't trained they're not certified under arizona standards and they're clearly not authorized and not permitted to make stops it's not the constitution prohibits that kind of show of a government agent fully armed fully mark point someone over without the correlating the corresponding authority to conduct the stop the the magistrate did not find authority to stop he did not address that he did not find authority to stop the record is rep