united states against triplett is the next case for organ today thousand and twelve in the middle of the afternoon officers observed a group of approximately ten men standing on a corner in an area a few blocks away from a hospital an additional man approached the group and spoke to mr triplett mr triplett then retrieve something from a nearby vehicle and exchanged it for cash the district court erred when it held that this observation was enough to supply the necessary probable cause to search mr chaplets vehicle nothing about the observation here it showed a probability of criminal activity and the fact that the officers were in the area to investigate an anonymous and unreported tip about drug activity doesn't change the fact that law enforcement built to corroborate the existence of illegal activity so we asked this court to reverse the district court's denial of the motion to it mr triplets conviction and remand the case to the district court the surrounding circumstances here suggest that this transaction was perfectly legal it was out in the open around other people it occurred in the middle lot middle of the afternoon and was near a hospital in today's modern economy plenty of people use online websites like pres craigslist or faith based book marketplace and is often seen best for people to conduct those transactions in the exact same way that mr here out in the open in public and in the presence of others the question here is not whether an officer could have been suspicious at all as a law enforcement officer but the question is whether this transaction shows a substantial chance of criminal activity the call and the single handed in transaction here or simply aren't enough to show that something criminal was actually occurring but together these two things merely show that there was a black car in the area and that somebody gave mr triplett money for something small but those two dollars things together don't show that he's more likely than not to have committed a crime and that evidence of that crime would be in the vehicle the government's brief at eighteen suggests that because the transaction was commercial in nature which the government asserts was something unusual in the middle of the city street that supports a finding a probable cause but this fact doesn't add to the probable cause calculation because people engage in all sorts of transactions in a variety of places and just the fact that something is commercial does not make it criminal nothing prohibits transactions from occurring in public and conducting a transaction in public and in the presence of others is just as likely to suggest that it was something innocent the government's brief at eighteen also suggests that because mr triplett didn't seem to be a social acquaintance with the unknown man and that he retrieved and i don't from a car means that it was a listen in some but those facts were actually suggest criminality which is what we need here people conduct all kinds of transactions with others and it's not criminal to simply transact with another individual just you know if you don't know them and again because of the activities even on the street where a new year seller counts his money walks across the street to another location and recreate the small object of rumo vehicle and the window was actually open in this case which suggests that it wasn't actually being hidden but regarding the train or the officers training and experience and the lack of probable cause here can't just be supplemented by a general claim or reference to the officers training and experience because the officer never explained what it was about his training experience that distinguished this transaction from a legal sales traction and action so when he saw an exchange of money for something small we don't know exactly you know what about that would have been remembering up next was there any objection to trial who along the lines about his training and experience to which the officer replied he mentioned his number of years of experience and his just the number of drug transactions that he had purportedly seen but the government's job in proving probable cause  to bring out those facts and show what it is about someone's training or experience that supports that finding a problem and so since the burden was on the government to show probable cause the government should have brought those out in the court below distinguish from innocent activity like simple transactions on craigslist and illegal drug transactions if this court found that this ambiguous transaction could constitute probable cause it would tell officers in this circuit that diligent police were is necessary and this is particularly troubling in a day and age when a significant amount of commerce occurs online and once a week for people to conduct those transaction is is by doing it there any evidence in the record that online transactions are customarily completed by approaching car giving care and getting items from inside the my question is is there any evidence of record that online transactions are customarily completed in the way in which this transaction was carried out not in the record no the record does show that since this was in the in public and among others and during the day those facts suggest that this was something perfectly innocent that wasn't that doesn't suggest criminality your hon forgetting receiving the call itself it was not reported in any way or memorialized written down the license plate was in any way but there wasn't any probing of the collar to find out the basis of knowledge so not only do we have very few facts about the amount what is what is occurring and how the person knows we don't know how they know what they know or why they were calling so it's really hard to say that this type of call would even reprise the level of reasonable suspicion  but once officers were certain ducting surveillance after seeing the single ambiguous transaction they could have attempted to you know potentially shift our locations and  end see another transaction i'm to get more information in to increase the quality of information they had at the moment thank you thank you because drug ripple asked a question while you were trying to reserve searched there apparently was no incriminating search so it seems to me you know this is split in the lower courts as to whether the observation of a dance and exchange of cash for a small unknown object by itself without some additional evidence what we're doing is speculating i disagree on a couple of things st of all there were there i think the passenger side sizer d towards the roof of the vehicle he saw a bank or the egg sticking out from behind the visor as it page one hundred of the hearing transcript it was  that point the book interviewer reached in old out the baggie discovered the suspect heroin was furthermore only at that point anybody was detained or patted down or anything or any arrest took place so i disagree with with you on the fact that it was the only thing and also another time and the other thing i would disagree with you on is the court has said their officers experience or training is certainly a factor to be used in determining whether there was probable cause this officer with or without challenge from the defense at th location where the drugs or the stranger remained where he had met triple street triple himself triple by himself went over to the drugs in the car and again as one might expect there's a a rapid parting of the ways between the purchaser and the cell there's no lingering around there's no talk about the product it's a quick one might say streets triplett and the others would have been able to observe that from where they were standing because they believe they were looking down their positions or they could see down the cross street where they were the fire had approached from where the fire had it is the reaching out to retrieve what was hidden above the visor in a baggie and only then was an arrest made and only then was further search of the car made it disclose all the other s the actual search in the moment at which the car was and turned the report rights bocanegra approach defendant's car and he reached inside the passenger side window where they also had seen defendant remove the suspected drugs to sell vehicle at the windows were down i looked inside and could see baggies i pulled on them and there was a total of three bags so again that supports the finding that this was sort of just one fluid look and reach and the search happened at that point