out of play for the united states if i may i would like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal and i will keep track of my time please before i begin my argument i unfortunately i need to point out a factual error that i made in my opening brief i would i don't think it affects the court's opinion but in the interest of candor i would like to point out in a footnote on page six footnote three on page six i made the mistake of saying the evidence of whether or not mr williams turned off the ignition in his car was uncontested i should not have said that it was uncontested the defense did contest that and now that was an incorrect thing for me to say at our e o r two fifty nine the defense did  contest whether or not he turned off the ignition so that was i just wanted to point that out once again i'm we're not contesting the district court's factual findings so i don't think it will affect the court's disposition in this case but i hope that i haven't created any u e confusion for the court thank you the first thing i would like to to address is the the waiver argument with regard to probable cause for the arrest itself and as i'm sure the court is aware what happened here was a little unusual because the district court based its argument its excuse me it based its its decision on that point on something that  had raised in our response to the motion to suppress but that was not very heavily litigated by the parties the issue of once mr williams fled whether or not the police had reasonable suspicion for the arrest and the defense argues that we waive that claim by not by not briefing it more fully by not pointing out the statutes upon which we think that the district court should have found that there was probable c for the arrest but i believe that we did we did raise that in our response to the motion to suppress and more importantly by reaching the issue the district court put this court in a position to  rule on that issue so i do i do not believe it is waived here you're talking about where mr williams ran police officers and therefore if you claim violation of the destruction delays under the local statute yes your honor and then that the process that you use for probable cause to make arrest that's correct your honor and then of course once the officers executed the arrest for the theory i think the theory is the police have reason to talk to you not probable cause but just a reason to talk to you have you know the police walk up to somebody and let's say they have found a suspicion you know where they were there's a police need to talk to somebody not not as a suspect necessarily but just to get that winds up being a crime it's more narrow than that your honor it's not that they are it's not that the suspect is compelled to talk it's just that the suspect is compelled to provide their name that the statute is very specific about that it says other than that person's name they're not they're not provided they're not required to provide any additional information to the police but they so more so by running away the committing a crime because they are not providing the name yes your honor had the police asked them for his name i don't know if they specifically i don't think that that was the first question out of their mouth no i don't think there's because he has an urgent appointment somewhere else maybe because he just doesn't want to say anything the police have all so before the police actually ask him a question what's your name which think i think i may have misspoken when i i didn't mean to leave the court with the impression that the name was the only thing that the statute requires of a person it doesn't require to provide a name but if i could just read it so that there's no contrition and this is once again an r s one seven one one two three and i am reading the third paragraph i'm sure where you're going from nevada revised statutes one seventy three dot one two three person's identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person's presence abroad so i don't think that under the statute the officer is necessarily you know as the person gets ready to run the officer is not required to say hey what's your name and and and that makes it so that you have committed a crime the officer when they have reasonable suspicion they're allowed to ask you your name they're allowed to determine the circumstances of your presence reasons mention of what reasonable suspicion of what it just that it's in the first section under circumstances that reasonably indicate that the person has committed is committed it is committing or is about to commit a crime that's what i'm asking in this case what   the color the officers knew that the caller had specifically said that the person was a known drug dealer who did not live in the area who was sleeping in their car and so i think any of those things could serve as that as the suspicious circumstances and i think also the the the notion of reasonable suspicion i don't think that it has to necessarily be tied to a particular crime because if we look at cases about flight you know if you're in a suspicious neighborhood under suspicious circumstances and you and not you if that if a suspect is in a suspicious neighborhood under suspicious circumstances they see the police coming and they run off the police and then isn't necessarily going to be able to say you know you've obviously got a weapon or you've obviously got drugs or you obviously have tile pornography on your phone or anything else that they don't they don't have it's not the same as probable cause where they have cause to believe that you committed an actual crime it's just reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity  that that person is involved in crime correct so seeing somebody come out of a liquor store for example that they don't think it's the guy but they just want to sort of find out what's inside the liquor store that would not be kind of they have actually when have they detained the person i mean you do have to say you're detained i mean at what point does this person's right to walk away or run away for whatever reason i'm i'm not exactly sure but i would and i'm sorry because i'm guessing and i had not thought about this very specifically before argument but i assume i believe that it would take place at the point that the police made a show of authority and asked the person to do something in this case to get out of your car i'm certain so are you i want to do exactly that what you're doing was to relate to this case just walk to the district court actually found in this case that his the police didn't detain him until he submitted to their their attempt to detain him in other words this is a quote w well their officers attempted to detain him certainly before then but they obviously were not successful in doing so since he ran off so i thought detention as a matter of law is a question you know is when you movements are sufficiently impaired that you're not you don't feel you're free to go even though you might theoretically be able to leave i mean the fact that he gets away doesn't mean he's that was let me let me ask you what is the government what is the government's position when was he detained of this point i didn't appeal the district court's determination that he was not detained until after he had fled point one two three point three six and yes your honor ok and i just want to say the position so the fact that he can still get out of the con fully on that doesn't change the fact in your view that he was in fact detained and once detained and he flees that then becomes a crime of the state law because having been detained he has  stuck around to be asked the questions of the police and legitimately titled last yes i mean i'm just trying to understand the chain of reasoning yes you're on actually if i could have one moment your honor ok and i realize that i t i don't think that i and i'm looking at your five which is the district court's order and looking under under it's the subheading one where the district court says first is a polemic came out of the court finds that william caesar was not complete until he was physically apprehended after he fled finding that the defendant who momentarily spoke to the police and then fled was not seized intel he was physically apprehended i don't i don't think that i disagree with the district court's finding there i don't think that he was detained until after the police tell after he ran from the police i think the police tried to detain him and that was what triggered the operation of the statute but as far as when that when the detention actually took place i think it was once he he fell down and submitted to the police well all right so if he's not detained how does that work with us when some of the one point one sure don't want to deal with the police so they're coming down the block and you start running away there's no violation here even though the police might have a legitimately to talk to you you know i think i'm sorry i think i misunderstood you under state law to stick around and answer police questions doesn't arise until you're detained i disagree your honor i think it arises once the police try to detain you because if that if the police try to detain you and if all you have to do is get a way to keep from violating the statute that doesn't that doesn't make any any sense to me and i think that the statute needs to be read in conjunction with  tame i think that at the point i mean if you mean detaining and attempting to thing i think that at the point that they came behind him and turned on their lights and ordered him to get out of the vehicle at that point they're certainly attempting to so so i just grew up man the because it was an obvious one and you said you know like a fish you but the hook so yes so so so you know that you tane i think it's i don't think that miranda kicks and tell his intel he is arrested arrested i think that when on reasonable suspicion that the court can the officers can at least get his name from afraid that i just have not thought about this particular issue and i would hate it i would hate to mislead the court if the court would like me to provide some additional briefing on this i'd be happy to do this and i apologize that i hadn't i hadn't thought about this s good morning may please the court in mccleary on behalf of tony williams i would like to address some of the court's questions the officers who stopped mr williams did not ask him for anything the officers who blocked in tony williams did so on a chip that was very bare bones outside sleeping in a car i mean well well that's that's how the guy sleeping in and then with respect to the court even those facts that you had just repeated aren't actually what was considered in the tip the chip was that the person in the car they didn't identify mr williams was known to be a drug dealer so so when the officers came up upon mr williams and they suspected that it was perhaps a lawyer ringer a drunk driving well i won't i'm sure what's the point of that you don't think they have enough  suspicion to talk to him i think that based on that information that they had information enough that they could question him they could investigate him ok or not do so by blocking him in and doing so in a way say if we have the facts we have and i'm just change one thing instead of having fun sitting in the car he is now outside the car and they walk up to him so they're you know this much by the distance to him  they have been told he is known to be a drug dealer no no they're entitled to if they believe that cause to believe that he was armed and dangerous they don't have that information you can do a carry frisk if you have that information  that you think just being told that somebody is a possible drug dealer is not enough for trigger terror not in this circumstance not with any temporal references not with any out any claims that he saw him do any drug and said you know this guy and this is this description i saw him factors the man says it's happening he says where he is he gives his name his phone number i mean this this is not something where somebody says here i'll have i get my book out and i'll read what what i'm supposed to say this is energize people who are reporting to the police what they feel is a threat in some respects it seemed to me in reading the cases that this was a pretty strong tip even though i didn't see a crime being committed he was worried about a crime obviously because he believed this person was a drug dealer do you think a tip really bet i do your honor i do for the fact that he could perhaps look out and see something and report what he's seeing contemporaneously is one thing florida versus j l requires that the tipster be able to if you're going to have some indicia of real reliability to be able to forecast that there is some sort of criminal activity going forward you have to give some predictive information not something that an average joe on this case because they say this person believes apparently he's a drug dealer it's in a high crime rate and it's out in front of his house there wasn't sufficient information that there was a high crime rate the information that was given by the officers was the run of the mill we have high crime in this area there is no statistics there is no information and the type of high crime you need to make a good tip he has to go out and do some statistical checks or he believes it's a high end krink right now crime area as does the police officer and i was only speaking with regard to the police officer your honor when the police officer testified the police officer who spoke to the high crime area also said in a whole other lot of stuff that doesn't make it a high crime area that doesn't test that doesn't provide any able to me saucer shooters said when they formed in the police officer you're not give me enough information we're not going to send in a police a police officer to see you know your honor and perhaps i'm misunderstanding your question i'm referring to when the officers were tested as to why they thought that this satisfied reasonable suspicion they didn't provide any information to the district court to satisfy o e i thought you were saying the tip was no your honor you were on the an argument at the time i interjected that how poor this tip  and i just didn't see that as a poor tim i would think the police would have to check if if a citizen made that type of a telephone call to the police department and i don't disagree that they had every right to investigate that ok i disagree with what that allowed them to do is far as their investigative techniques i don't think that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that what was it was so they come along and they come along and they are of course they have to protect themselves we have a lot of police officers that get shot just walking up stopping somebody to a car so there are there where there's a dangerous situation a dangerous situation is being reported they think this may be a person who's dui they don't want to escape so they put their car behind the car so we can anything wrong with that type of investigation there is you mean he should have pulled over to the side so the person could pull out is that right well when the officers came upon him they had no information no no i mean here's my answer my question is by your theory when the police officers came to the scene they should not have parked behind him they should have parked away from him so he had an opportunity to pull out if he chose to do so that's your argument that's my argument your honor and the police were wrong in doing that even though they thought they had this person may be a dui and that the seizure in this case was not complete until mr williams fled and the officers arrested him the district court correctly found that there were no grounds to arrest mr williams so when they did their terry frist pat down of him when they stopped him that's all that they were entitled to do when they arrested him without probable cause to do so i'm sorry  came i was assuming you weren't agreeing with me on reasonable suspicion your honor all here i understand what you're saying is very first i'm based upon a tourist up and didn't find anything it was contraband exactly them arrested him for what we don't know correct and then they searched him as opposed to first with first and then finally contraband absolutely so by finding contraband after arresting them without probable cause for any crime that's part of the exactly it's what about the running away part i think the running away i think fleeing contributes to a finding a reasonable suspicion no no i mean what the government argues about was a violation of a guess one seventy one point one two three well i disagree if that were the case the hypotheticals that your honor posed to the government council during their argument would basically throw out the fourth amendment reason to talk to him right yes and state law says when the police over you talk to you and they detain you you have to answer certain questions yes you  now because they didn't ask many questions they never once asked him a question i didn't say they asked me questions have been entitled to ask questions well this was not a statute that we would have challenge the constitutionality of because  just saying i'm sorry it wasn't raised below i said the first time that the government raised this argument was in its opening brief so this wasn't a particular statute that either the defense or the district court would have considered the constitutionality of and that was the heart of our waiver argument with regard to this even so and high bell when this court considered or the supreme court considered this statute the court was explicit that the terry stop was in the first instance not at issue here was it issue so the fact that if reasonable suspicion allowed them to finally stop him at the point that he surrendered nothing in the statute had been violated because i hadn't fully completed their seizure of him or their detention of him as a district court found hussein's obligation to give his name would have been when he was detained and then he would have to actually correct for those reasons your honour's we ask that you are from the district court's order suppressing the evidence in this case thank you me i may already be in a hole and just need to stop digging but i did take a minute to research the question that your honor asked me during my my initial argument and i found a case which i apologize i didn't cite it once again i didn't think of it i just simply didn't think about this issue but i'd be happy to cite it to the court with the court's or mission show it's the united states versus butler to forty nine f third ten ninety four it the case books are full of scenarios in which persons detained by law enforcement officer is not free to go but is not in custody for miranda purposes a traffic stop is not custody terry stop and frisk is not custody and i polished eyes that i hadn't thought of that angle and i did not know the answer once he fled from the officers we had probable cause to arrest him for flight we didn't rate we didn't cite the statute but this was not an issue that was heavily litigated in the district court because the defendant did not did not raise anything about that the district court surprised us a little bit when the district court relied on that statute in its ruling because we had not the parties had not talked about it and so for the district court to bring it up in his ruling was was a surprise to both parties that's why we weren't