it as concealment in fact the partner described it as an attempt to conceal not sure what an attempt to conceal would be so you have conflicting testimony there already of two officers one claiming concealment one claiming an attempt to conceal i don't believe that those characterizations are objective but subjective with what's  so you're saying that it doesn't make a difference if it's twenty six and pelasgian or of minutes michigan avenue randolph and a bus stop at two fifteen in the morning to thirteen and morning does that make a difference i don't think it does make a difference in fact i don't believe that there was any testimony that that was a high crime area i don't dispute that in making a ruling that the judge stated that or made reference to that but there was no evidence in the record that that is a high crime or crime area i'm personally not only are with that area don't know whether that's a high crime area that could be a factor anything that any fruit of the poisonous tree that happens during that encounter should be suppressed i don't deny that he voluntarily stated that he had a gun but he stated that during an encounter that was illegal from its like that i don't believe they did that's no different than the simms case where the officer saw somebody stuff something into their pants or that after a case where an officer saw somebody stuff something into the where they ask him do you have a i don't i don't believe that that was a ruling of law that that that created two separate encounters that we had a terrorist stuff that ended when the seal here was found in the bag and now we have a field interview after threatened because when they approached of a guess initially if they didn't pat him down they'd in the s about the weapons it was only after they had struck out on their terry stuff or illegal terry stop that there was  adding that fact to the facts not the suspicions in the hunches but the facts that existed in this case did not rise to the level of a reasonable articulable suspicion that there was criminal activity have any evidence of what his movement was what it how did they area and they saw somebody put something in this pants concealing it's the exact not exact it's nearly the exact same fact pattern and the court found that that was an improper take i don't think what's inside makes any difference they have to have facts that the each of the initial confrontation with the defendant what happened in the after the fact discovery of what's in the what do you have in your pants and he says a gun in hand to talk how is that a violation of the fourth man th the difference i there is a difference of there ok but that but the initiation of the contact has to be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that's what's missing here s was hanged coughed and taking to the station before it was determined whether he had a fort card or a concealed carry license and the l and illinois was clear that possessing a handgun if you have a proper fourth card concealed carry license is legal so mr b a guess was arrested without probable cause and taken to the station before it was determined that he was conducting at legal age of eighty i also mentioned this sixth would ask that mr via this conviction be reversed thank you and how and the trial court was acutely aware of who what where when and how the officers testimony was based on what where when and how on which was back time of the early morning  think from his name right but i will point out that it also was one or two fifteen am which is probably reasonable and that he had in the earlier testimony and wasn't just based on what he did i think it was based on where they were and the fact that these are police officers and when they do a search on someone they're going to have to turn around and walk away and th minimally invasive and to simply ask someone do you have a weapon and if the person has a weapon they're in their trouble when they turn around even if there's two of them one of him so there is no isn't over because they're standing there he's standing there before and they have to walk away now and at that point they're allowed to based on screen service of officer safety and the trial court made this is a finding and this finding i would think would be subject to considerable deference based on officer safety it's one forty five or whatever time that is doing or deem to thirteen in the morning they can ask a simple question they can ask any one question do you have a weapon so i don't know under these facts whether that would be my position but i certainly think that this something is minimally intrusive and this is the absolute minimum intrusion we have and how you're how monstrous this entire encounter i think that there was question but so i think that would be ok but this was a cherry stop in that they'd sat they already knew it said that he wasn't free to leave at that moment that's why i'm defending it is terry stop so the cherry stop as i'm dollars but if he was just standing there and they just happen to be walking down the street and ask the question he would also be free not to answer i might add he didn't have to answer that question now right so so that would be a valid encounter yeah but it wouldn't be a terry stop and this was a  so that's why i've been defending him so that's how we if we found that this was not a valid terry step we could still find that it was a valid encounters at which you don't i think that there i think the and there was no that wasn't something that was argued either may have really that wasn't the argument here made by the defense counsel that you have it that he was every day they argued that the officers present evidence to that fact but we talked about that the fact that the officer was the one officer when the most experienced officer pirbright make here you know it's like a twenty year officer and when the his suspicions weren't that this was like that kind of a crime that you're talking about i think he's talking this is fissions have to do i mean work with a violent crime we're talking about it he had an open container of wasn't one so that the officers walk away but before they walk away as a matter of safety given the circumstances they properly for officer safety concerns asked the defendant simply do you have a w connection but it's all of these things it's not just the area it's the defendant's behavior he's been secretive towards them it's this time of night it's the fact that there are police officers and they're concerned frankly in chicago with walking away from someone and turning their back without first ascertaining that the person doesn't have a weapon i think that's a fair question to ask anywhere in chicago for police officers in the the walk a dog by which would take more seconds than it would to say do you have a weapon it is a question that in of itself would have been ok if there wasn't a cherry stop so they don't need it to be a high crime area to is premised on the fact that terry stop was ok because the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the way the defendant was acting with respect to the suspicious his wishes actions with respect to the black bag the black plastic of bags that people generally get when you buy alcohol you get in a black plastic bag it's my understanding so and that officer had a special expertise in that area at that time in that place so they had reasonable suspicion carry stop and then when they laughed as a matter of officer safety they asked a proper question to the fact that it was perhaps an officer with a trained eye might see that behavior is being suspicious but that there wasn't sufficient testimony elicited demonstrating that  testimony of the threats the needle in this case and you've got the fact that in after the invasion was a pattern down here of the you know i think it was they very quickly they approached him in a very very non confrontational non dangerous way and they just they patting him down when they approach him initially why are they not asking whether he has a handgun initially if that's the concert officer safety is not the concern here the terry stop is basically over at that point that issue at the point of heat initial encounter with the defendant the totality of the evidence did not include any evidence that this was a high crime area and also there was some discussion about the length of the encounter it's not even plausible that this entire thing would have happened in ten seconds there was evidence that this encounter happened in under a minute and that seems like a more reasonable time other than that if you have any other questions i would just stand up my argument thank you very much thank you for giving us a very interesting case