contents of his phone and his d n a profile in a motion to suppress that matter base elegy and that basically the officers had detained him without reasonable suspicion and arrest them without probable cause and that those evidentiary items were fruits of the poisonous tree the dischord denied the motion to suppress based on essentially four factors one that mr polite was encountered in a high crime area which the court the supreme court around versus texas found is not alone enough to detain reasonable suspicion for the detention you know apart from everything else wouldn't the brief kneeling behind the automobile as the officer approached given the officers knowledge of  about unusual activity in that human beings do every single day that can be considered a furtive gesture we have we have thrown a lot into the pot of furtive gestures and kneeling as well his walking away from the crowd is not alone and nuff to two to warrant one being placed immediately into handcuffs and held there for the for over the course of an hour or more importantly though i think is the district court's reliance upon the last two facts namely the officers prior knowledge alleged prior knowledge of mr polite and the officers claim that he heard the sound of metal hitting the ground that are more problematic i think that based on the high crime area and kneeling alone that alone is not enough to detain someone to detain someone because they are on a certain set of cross streets and the needle behind a car it would would would basically render the fourth amendment another lety uncertain terms of omaha that is these last two areas they didn't that the district ns into an arrest but when you play someone in handcuffs in pain and i would soon at that point he was placed under arrest we're a number of cases so i may be confused in that it wasn't wasn't mr probably a convicted felon he was not what he was not only he was indicted because during the statement he gave there after he admitted to smoking marijuana on a regular basis of use and he was indicted under one of the other sub sections of the privileged person federal firearms statute which prohibits up or decided to come across this crowd of people one of whom they recognize as it being a member they placed the closest guy to them in handcuffs they found firearms and then in writing the reports reverse engineered reasonable suspicion morning my name is mailroom this is the united states attorney representing the apple e in this case the united states of america if i could start i'd like to address the facts that mr mcwilliams went into initially with respect to this case i agree with them october thirty first in the evening hours approximately ten thirty five pm officers from the only all police department gang unit went to an apartment complex at forty eight and sailor streets this apartment complex was in a high crime area in fact it was an apartment complex that was known to be a crips gang hangout officers knew this area because they had been there in the past it was known for narcotics trafficking firearms offenses in past murders officers were requested to go to this apartment complex from the owners of the apartment complex as well as management they were tired of seeing it turn out that mr petite was a member of this he was u warrant had contact with polite so he knew who he was he knew he was an admitted gang member also knew his age which is important in this case so arriving on scene they activate their emergency lights in their own market cruiser they get out immediately upon getting out of the vehicle the parties begin to disperse away from the officers a group of individuals with known gang members goes one direction in plight is effectively standing alone in front of a blue officer who's able to hear it metallic sound of a gun which by the evidence in the case was set down on a cross here from thirty feet away there's no way and knowing the age of the defendant in advance the credibility standard does allow us to find that this is just not credible i take issue with the idea that a firearm was placed on the grass there's no testimony to support that that's the allegation in mr mcwilliams brief that somehow he was simply placed on the ground at the point that mister behind that vehicle doesn't the recording of the event from say  is that a gun you just put down over there ok what officer sunder mark testified to was hearing a metal thump hearing what he described he had heard before in past encounters where had recovered guns up gang members as being a gun tossed onto the ground you heard that in the immediate area by flight and then he heard it in an area to the east the polite approximately ten feet  that down whether or not he threw it down on the ground and kicked it or whether or not he tossed it and it landed on the ground it's not inherently incredible to think that an officer can hear a large metallic object striking the ground especially when he's trained to do so and he's heard that in the past according to officer sun or marks testimony and that was the finding of the district court as well your honor sole district court describe the areas i mean we we've heard this described as a pleasure each is placed on the grass but the district court says that colia grassy would be charitable it was sort of a mixed gravel grass rock kind of a thing is that true or not true that is true in fact what the court said was that it's not parenting incredible that a farm dropped on the ground might make a sound even if it landed on grass that could charitably described as patchy those in the district court's findings on that's difficult docket page fifty our docket document fifty two page two so essentially what the district court is seeing there is what was in the evidence looking at the pictures you can see that it appears that the gun had just landed or bounced off a sidewalk and landed into that patchy area and so obvious of son of mark hearing that contemporaneous with seeing polite ducking behind the vehicle hearing it a second sound with a firearm and then seeing polite stand up behind that vehicle and pro choice officer sunder marquis then places him in handcuffs in briefs leave it pains him to determine whether or not there's ongoing criminal activity and in fact what he heard was in fact true counsel soon that that created reasonable suspicion for the detention what crying to the officer believe ploy was committing to for purposes of probable cause at least two crimes in this case  one would be being a minor in possession of a handgun that's in violation of city ordinance recall that officer sunda myers testimony was he knew that like was a minor in other words he was less than twenty one years of age state statute requires that if you're going to carry a concealed weapon you have to be at least twenty one years of age that states that you city ordinance omagh city ordinance requires that if your possession of a handgun you have to be at least twenty one years of age officer to the area where he heard that sound and then saw that firearm sitting on that patchy grassy area a second firearm was recovered by the other group of gang members that officer son of mars partner  engaged at that time at what point was so much white under arrest the district court found that he was under arrest at the point that he was taken up to the front of the car an officer son amar verified what he had seen which was a firearm that had been at the point that he was under arrest officer remained with plied with the firearm he seized his cell phone any centrally waited for on the crime scene to come on station and to be able to document everything essentially what he was doing is he's maintaining the status quo he wasn't allowing play to get on a cell phone and he was centrally standing by the firearm to ensure its integrity and that nobody else messed with it so and also consented to the search of his phone both all of those things will orally in written form your honor so in terms of the reasonable suspicion it's certainly different than jones certainly different than case effectively what mr mcwilliams is asking you guys to do is to pass on the credibility of witnesses in this case as this court has said time and time again circumstance in which an officer specifically testified to material misrepresentations in regards to a contemporaneous statement that was made in an in car recording the court then decided that there wasn't substantial evidence to support the district court's finding that the officer just simply made in erroneous misstatement there is nothing there we don't have that here the best guess of evidence on the part of this officer is what he observed that is walking to the front of the car and confirming what he had heard that is that this this defendant had discarded a firearm along with another gang member so under those circumstances i would ask that you from the district court ok thank you counsel your time is up during the government's arguments only this gun is getting dropped it's getting kicked it's bouncing off sidewalks the bottom line is that the furtive gesture which triggered allegedly officer sunder myers attention was kneeling if the gun was going to be dropped or