we'd like to focus on he needed to win over three arguments of which is that the motion to suppress in this case should have been granted in the lower court and that's because the terry frisk that officers conducted on mr williams was unlawful improper illegal and therefore the evidence should have been suppressed without evidence being suppressed there was no way to stick to prove mr williams guilty of either of the charge crimes and so those convictions need to be reversed outright the other argument will bring up today is that the is a very narrow exception to the fourth minute protections against unreasonable searches and seizures it's a very brief protective measure used by officers for protective purposes that's all it's an outer pat down of the clothing and is only justified if officers have an objective we reasonable belief that the person they're currently bus again is armed and dangerous and a threat to their safety that standard was not met here it's mainly an objective analysis and objective like it's not met all the officers knew when they decided to handcuff him first mr williams is that his juvenile companion had a pill case in his jacket they knew there had been prior bank the area fairly that have occurred sometime the last several weeks there's no other details provided us of those robberies and yet they decide to handcuff and frisk mr williams now regardless of whether they suspected him of robbery some language in there that has been used by the state to justify a frisk merely because mr williams are suspected of robbery that language is essentially somebody think gauged in the activities of taking the property of another person likely will be armed only since i'm not unlikely that they will be armed because somebody may strenuously object to the taking of their property now twelve years later and people the gal illinois supreme court looked at that language directly analyze probably from another person because of the way strenuously object that language cannot be used to create some presumption that simply suspect and somebody may be engaging in that activity is automatically are going to interest their need to be more objective objective factors and those factors are here the state cites to several other cases but all those cases have something that's not here several descriptive factors about somebody who is being pursued by police for armed robbery and it's important to note that there's no mention of it being height certain weight a certain race wearing certain clothing oh and by the way they're suspected of armed robbery they may have a semiautomatic weapon other the officers notice a bulge in people's clothing giving them a reasonable belie objective we reasonably thought that person may be armed and dangerous none of that is here none of it is here now it is mainly objective analysis that's true but subjective considerations of officers are taken into account should they give them and they are probative and can be considered as part of the analysis and here the officers never testified that they believe mr williams was armed and dangerous to the contrary officers testified that mr williams was not writing that he did not use harsh language that he did not make any furtive movements or try to flee so subjectively objectively there's just nothing here to point to a lawful terry frisk and that being the case the have it should've been suppressed and without that evidence the state has not contested the idea that they would not have not been able to prove guilty of either charge at trial now as to attempt arm robbery for this we argue that the state did not prove mr williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of taking a substantial step towards that crime but he decided he didn't want to rob them so he took the cab back to the train station at which point he robbed the cab driver of the cab and took off in the cab officers found him later he tried to elude officers in doing so he drops state here is essentially charge mr williams with the attempt or robbery of some place somewhere around where he is sitting in the state argued it could've been a bank it could have been the apartments he was sitting in front of or it could have been the funeral home now this is in the face of officer testimony that mr williams did not appear to be committing a crime this is in the face of testimony of officer saying that he was never seen approaching the back and that he did not appear to be pacing the apartments he said in front of him armed robbery and certainly has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt if if you have if you have no questions on the on those issues i could touch briefly on our first argument and the first argument is simply that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest mr williams but when they handcuffed him it was an arrest now we look to the extent of extensive case law that says of course can coving is not automatically considered an arrest but it is considered an arrest if the handcuffing is done and it's not reasonably necessary for the safety of officers at the time and again we would simply point to the facts of the case mr williams was not threatening this is off down was not justified for officer safety reasons and so this was an arrest and they lacked probable cause now the state has conceded that they lacked probable cause as to the two to charge crimes but they argue should this court decides he doesn't arrest but they did have probable cause as to a possible sexual offense because it was discovered that mr williams was a registered sex offender and he was with the juvenile that day but this was brought up in the lower court and the lower court took notice of it and the lower court said yes the officer had concerns but didn't fully understand the law and so that was that and as is well established in case law here concerns you not rise to the level of probable cause and that's especially the case where the question is not whether somebody has committed a known crime but as here whether somebody has committed a crime at all that mr williams had taken a substantial step towards the commission of that crime i will note briefly that the state does rely on people being terrill for the proposition that the state did prove in a tent armed robbery that substantial step was taken outside of a gas station the man had a gun and was around six thirty in the morning police received a call that there's a suspicious man in the in the weeds with a gun right off i guess it was given gas station office approached ses and walks towards a bank they almost got and except for a quick employee who bowed to the lower right before they got to him i mean that's a substantial step towards the commission of the crime of armed robbery here mr williams was simply found sitting on  funeral home observed the found innocent and acting suspiciously walking according to the report walking up and down the street and in between apartments and then he contacted a police officer who w companion being someplace that they don't really have any reason to be we have a defendant who is a sex offender with the canyon who is a minor we have a mission as well when that  neighborhood is this i was not real clear the apartment buildings and then there's the the base with manny i think they said about one hundred yards maybe less than a hundred feet from where the apartments are other person without a purpose i'm sure of course that is when you add all these things up and you realize hey this is the situation appears suspicious i think it's warranted under the circumstance into this rough i'm not sure that there was a lot of questioning about the fact that these were african american individuals must surely can perceive just based on what what is said i mean descriptions if you're going to call a description of individual the race of the individual is going to have you are a unfortunately you can't point to that but what is it objectively and we look at not not what they're racist but what were they doing what were their physical activities the walking around he can i search with you and he says you can search and then under this facts of this iteration he and the judge finds for officer safety he to search and he didn't have to consent but the combination of the fact that this was a bank robbery and there was the the bank robberies that were reported the last two weeks in this in circumstance and police are using police presence in this is in the area had been beefed up there was no other testimony because of these robberies so there is heightened suspicion of of at really anybody who's coming into that neighborhood who does not appear to have a reason for being there and that when you have you know if he doesn't find the location we probably don't have him be able to go and cut down the maze goes to the reason regional powers admitted that he was looking to commit a crime in the area burglary or of a house or car but that's not what we have offered a litany of possible targets and the court there said that you do don't have it was reasonable to reject that notion that just because there is highly other possible targets it doesn't mean that he wasn't targeting a bank specifically said it's a credit union or just the bank but he said it was reasonable to believe that it was one of the one of those targets so he did to when they're outside rebuilding and that's what we have a block away half a block away well you know in toronto they were and knew they were they were outside of the place they weren't going because of the evidence saying where they were going well he said he was going there for to buy cigarettes he was going to truly get a purpose of going someplace and he had these other  if you find somebody on the street with a gun that would mask and other militaries and there are robberies that are been taking place within the city of this of that it is you closer to your preparation in this case we are doing that it's much closer to attempt it is it isn't it time because it's a substantial step rather than your preparation i should rephrase that your pressure mr williams case it's twelve thirty in the afternoon he's not dressed in all black he's dressed appropriately for the weather officers testified it's not unusual to see somebody wearing hoodies in february he never tried to cover his face there was not only one business open at that time of day and it wasn't a an area where the officers testified it had been mere hours since the last bank robbery the facts are simply not comparable here there was no reason for officers to have a area that you may commit a crime is reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime it says lying in wait for the intended victim or place contemplated for the commission of the crime it's just not here so it's not a matter of where is he on the continuum he's not on the continual until he has taken a substantial step and based on people the smith that is that has not happened here