god save the united states and this honorable court into its parking space passengers driver and car but such a seizure requires reasonable suspicion and black and curry have both explained that presence in a high crime area is insufficient to justify a seizure if that is what occurred here only when officers escalated a lawful seizure by approaching the vehicle did they see a passenger concealing a firearm but black to prohibit the application of reasonable suspicion cases that were cited by the government all in which there were other circumstances all included officers responding to a specific call and in this particular case there was a specific call it was a routine patrol and the officers really indicated they mostly responded to loitering concerns on behalf of the motel owners in this particular instance the officers drove past the car son nothing suspicious other than people sitting in the car and it was only because it was a high crime area that they were even present in the st and black and curry both rejects the assumption that predictive policing like for example because there had been crime there resident motel or an extended stay hotel excuse me and that mr klaus girlfriend was residing there and he had last fully entered the premises for that purpose the officers did not see mr klaus go into the motel when they drove by all there has to be acquiescence by the defend it to the seizure and i've watched this tape a number of times and it doesn't look like to me mr cloud acquiesced to much of anything he got in the car he got out of the car he walked around officers asked him to come back he kept going he ignored their instructions he seemed to do pretty much what he wanted to do so i'm having difficulty seeing how th car the car was seized and so when mr cloud exit the motel room he would see this court's authority in jones and stover both indicate that when a car is blocked that is a higher watching the video to see where there would have well your honor i think that our point is that he was seen before any of those other actions occurred and what happened after mr pollard was seized is a relevant to the inquiry but in any event our position is also that when mr cloud mr hyde left the motel office or jenkins told him or asked him if he was staying there mr kyle responded he asked him how he was doing mr kyle responded when he did get out of the car we believe that at that point when he gets into the car he's asking clear increasingly incriminating questions and at the presence of officers has now escalated to the point where there are six uniformed armed officers and at least two to three patrol cars present and mr cloud was seized at that point anything that happened after he gets out of the car doesn't matter but even if this court were to consider what approaching the car with honor i think that in this case it's distinct from other instances in which there's the police citizen encounter a police citizen encounter is one in which the officers approach the person and the person can terminate the encounter or not but here the fact that the officers blocked the car without knowing whether there was any reasonable suspicion escalated it from merely a plea citizen encounter to an immediate these are and in this particular case the officers did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion  have the police authority and several waves i also have watched the video on multiple occasions and as the case law makes clear that is when there is an ambiguity as to whether or not someone passively acquiesce to the court must look to the sees when the police blocked the car because he wasn't physically in the car at the time he wasn't seized while he was outside of the car because j g suggests that he was pretty much doing whatever he wanted he got back into the car suppose that's when he would have had the opportunity to leave the scene but for the fact that the car as you point out was blocked by the police cruiser but by then as our understand the record the officer heads saw it seemed something in the back of the the able the teenager trying to hide something into the car the cave him some suspicion as to criminal activity being afoot so why wouldn't that be enough then at that point if we don't agree with  sponded to that st mr kyle when he did get in the car we agree that by that time the officer had what we believe unlawfully escalated the initial seizure of the car by approaching it and seeing the passenger concealing the firearm but here as opposed to many other cases in which the court determined they can continue or nest and need to continue to vesta get story detention in this instance the police officers knew who had committed the crime and they knew it was not mr clout they had seen the passenger investigate given that firearm was found in a car that was in the possession of mr clout at the time no your honor i don't think that it does even under north carolina law concealment of a firearm requires willful an he was able to see mr cloud hand the entire time that he was in the car that nd officer had no information about what mr cloud how long mr cutts had been in the hotel whether or not even the passenger had entered the car some time after mr cloud  into the hotel or perhaps even the passenger obtained the firearm after mr cloud was in the hotel there was no reasonable suspicion as to mr cloud other than the fact that the officer saw the passenger concealing a firearm and under black support that is not was the only adult in the car and minutes and he was driving the car certainly because there was a driver's seat that was vacant when he went into the motel room and   that there is a common enterprise between the driver and the passenger and they seem to be even if they were not when they saw the a weapon put under the driver's seat surely they are afforded a certain latitude in trying to investigate what's up i mean this is not a situation where they're responding to an anonymous report or an informant someone that refuses to  name this is a situation where there is a direct observation of criminal activity and where you have direct observation of criminal activity as opposed to some criminal act your honor i think i have several points that i'd like to address in that compound question the st is that the officers did not know that the men in the car were juveniles until long after mr cloud was when they ordered the passengers out of the car legitimate traffic stop and there was reasonable suspicion of a crime being occurred because of the legitimate traffic stop here however there was enough to treasonable suspicion only reasonable suspicion for why they approached that car but because it was in a high  and they could have approached on foot and asked the passengers question but instead they escalated it to a seizure absent any reasonable suspicion object to the initial teaser when cloud came out and the officer saw the passenger concealed the firearm i will agree that you know assuming that this court find initial fees or was was a seizure at the time that they officer had ordered everyone out of the car your honor then yes the officer had reasonable suspicion as to the back seat passenger and no one else simply also because in united states the black and i see my time of the bike may finish the question thank you your honor in united states black this court also rejected the idea that where there is one gun there are two and that is what happened here the officers assumed that because the back seat passenger had had a firearm that meant mr cloud must have had one as well legitimate just want to learn more here i'm not suggesting that once they saw the gun they had to walk away i think the initial problem was that they saw the gun in the st and then how they see the car and i think that once they saw the firearm and the driver admitted that for an unlawful purpose how doesn't answer the principle that you can seize and search any person that happened what how old is that in that instant officers may search the car and  let's assume that this that's correct and at the time that they attempted to detain him he resisted and fled do you concede that even if there might not have been enough especially at the time to detain the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and we're arguing here that that is not the case also in this court case or in this court's authority in united states the sprinkle the court determined that officers were legit had a legitimate reason to arrest the defendant after the fact only because he committed a new trying and it was that his illegal actions were new and distinct from any crime he may have been suspected a at the time of the initial thought and i the fact that mr potts led wasn't not a it was not based on a new crime such a sprinkle where a sprinkle aimed his gun at the officer and shot and so in this particular case california teaches that police can detain a car solely because to investigate a passenger's officer skipper testified unequivocally that he saw something suspicious going on in that car the passenger was illegally concealing a gun he saw the butt of a gun and he saw him conceal it under the seat that authorized the th amendment authorized police to detain the car and to detain think perhaps the one i need to make now is that that issues way that was not with the defense argued below the defense counsel's words were really arguing that mr cloud was the moment he got into his car and that was not the bit so it was forfeited below and it was not the argument in the opening brief either so i would start with that but perhaps easier answer is cloud wasn't even on the scene when you speak of the team the conduct needed to detain a person is intentional conduct directed at the detained individual mr cloud was entirely inside the inside the motel at the time they pulled up and even at the time they approached and shined the flashlight is that he came out after they'd seen the gun is certainly got a head already been in the car had he been in the car when they pulled up and blocked the car in the way that the record suggests that have been a seizure that would have been a tougher case your honor there is some testimony about i mean i think i think one of the big bat becomes a question under the mendenhall factors suggest under the mendenhall factors really the only question the only the only mendenhall factor of the time was really that there were police in uniform at that moment there were not a large number of police they had nothing questions if the car was only partially blocked and you know mr cloud also he put his head over his shoulder he didn't he didn't he didn't see that it was locked to the extent he did it all until after he was well into the car so that is a tougher question but i think the answer could be no but certainly the way the facts shook down in this case mr clive wasn't detained as he was certainly free to leave you could have stayed in the hotel room or he could have just walked away he chose to put himself in the car and he chose to put himself right in the scope of brenda and what brenton sense is a reasonable person wouldn't expect that you can just come and go from the focal point of an investigation and that's in case the focal point was a was a car police have a bright line rule of already if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity going on in the car to detain all those occupants while they're investigating this in this entire exchange from the moment they walked up to the car to the time that the cloud began to believe was about five minutes and that was moments after they pulled the gun out of the car so that was certainly within the scope of the of the of the under the passenger seat what crime if any did they suspect clout of a committee so what i don't know if there is testimony that they suspected him of a specific crime but the standard is an objective one and they certainly i think and i want to i want to mention that this is a different point because they didn't need to suspect clout of a crime in order to detain him at the scene of a car that's the bright line rule of brandon in the bright line rule of arizona versus johnson is you do not have to have individualized suspicion of for example the passenger if you're stopping the driver under brendan of the driver if you're stopping the passenger so you have reasonable suspicion for that purpose so i have and i don't mean to not answer your question what i think the police were suspecting is that he may be in a common enterprise with the other members of the car and i think they had good reason to that if it's to the extent reasonable suspicion of cloud individual is necessary i think they absolutely had it under the objective factors they were facing because the individual in the back seat the officer testified he held his gun in his hand in front of the other people in that car including clouds daughter it wouldn't have done that if he didn't trust them especially in a high crime area and when they pulled up behind the car they saw everyone sort of their eyes and rolled up the window it wasn't just l w who didn't want to interact with police or who was perhaps concerned about them the police had reason to suspect that whatever was going on with l w was something it was an enterprise involving everyone in the car and when cloud got in the car as if you were the drivers if you had driven there was if you were going to drive them away he gave them reason to suspect that whatever armed enterprise was going on in that car cigarette in other words he was concealing that gun to the extent he had the right to carry a gun openly he wasn't saying oh your arm just lovely carrying his gun he was concealing that gun from police which is very suggestive of the fact that he was perhaps using that gun for a purpose he didn't want police to know about in other words illegal activity in a high crime area where they've seen violent crime drugs gun crime in that area recently is that certainly suggestive of a concern that these folks hanging out in a in a car armed and concealing that gun from people were engaged in criminal activity that warranted not arresting them necessarily certainly not proof beyond reasonable doubt but simply investigating for the reasonable suspicion standard is not a high bar as well lower than a preponderance of the evidence it's well lower than probable cause it's more than in quick hunch just what's necessary to investigate further and if you're seeing a  firearm you know that's a very dangerous situation not just for the police officers but also for the other people on the scene and the people in the motel and the people in the parking lot that's something police really have an obligation to investigate and to do so safely they need to  that pretty much everything i want to say i think those are those are two rationales one is the one is the the friendly arizona versus johnson rule and another is reasonable suspicion and i think either one or there i do want to no that i think wilkinson mentioned that of course they wanted to pass him down they certainly had authority to pat plow down because you can pat somebody down if you have reason to believe he's armed and potentially dangerous to his association close dangerous situation and in the face of incriminating evidence and in the face of a situation where it appears that the people in the car the different people in the in that they can ensure their own safety and that all they know that the only option for them is to throw up their hands in and and walk away and i just don't think that can be  maryland vs wilson arizona vs johnson both made very clear that the danger presented by an ordinary traffic stop a circumstance free stop someone for speeding is not that the people in the car are going to react badly to being caught for speeding it's that they might react violently if police discover that another crime is going on in the car when they stop to conduct a traffic stop here that risk is right in the face of police officers because what they observed was speeding what they observed was somebody committing a gun crime in the car the risk they face was very real and you can see that i think in real terms in officer jenkins's testimony in the video itself he was very careful he didn't want to escalate the circumstance and let everybody know he found the gun until he got everybody out of the car and detained them and that was a report that was exactly what you would expect police to do to protect their safety and to protect was a seizure at some polling whether or not mr clout ever acquiesced to this so i think i haven't really addressed that i'm happy to do it now i think i have to admit that there was a seizure at some point which is when physical force was applied even if somebody doesn't acquiesce if police officers physically restrain him that's a seizure i think it's certainly questionable whether he whether he acquiesced well he clearly didn't acquiesce at any point until he was see he didn't i've watched the video just cagr watch the video and we heard the testimony police officers where he was ignoring commands to go hang back with other police that so i don't think he he probably didn't acquiesce i do think it's a bit of a red herring your honor because we ultimately did see him police ultimately did see him as at the time when a slight start and after they see that gun but it's also a red herring because police had the authority to stop that car and detain him from the get go from the moment they saw the gun in the car and from the moment he then got in the car into the extent they gave him or he had because he didn't acquiesce or because police gave him the liberty to continue to hang around the scene stead of ordering them ordering him to stay in the car which they that sort of thing you've got to stay in the car so i don't know if it is that is the most most efficient stance or to your question there but the i hope it addresses it i points the government relies heavily on brenda lynn and arizona b johnson and they mention united in myers all of those cases are different because they all involve a traffic stop and i know that seems like semantics here but  a traffic stop is premised on the idea that someone has committed a crime or some sort of traffic violation which provides the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop the car in this instance there was no reasonable suspicion for the officers approach that thought and at that point in brendan for example the court held they learned that he had the passenger had an outstanding warrant but it was after they had already stopped the car and we just don't have indicated that the task force had only made two prior arrests in that parking lot this wasn't an issue where there was an arrest every night for weeks on end this was a high crime area that was area predominantly african american and that for an officer to pass down a person they must have reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous but they only proceed to that that if they also st had indication that that person individual lives that that person was  on foot and not blocked the dodge and preventing it from leaving they could have asked questions of the individuals in the car and we would have been i think dealing with a different circumstance but in this case the officers immediately escalated the situation by blocking the car honor as soon as he exit at that hotel room i mean frankly when they blocked the car had clout exit of the hotel room and tried to leave he would have been for prevented from doing so and in fact that's actually what occurred as soon as part of left the hotel room he was se the officers knew who committed the crime when they did approach after they had locked the car and it was not a cloud was not associated with the juveniles the officers had no information whether or not but all the men had arrived with him cut at the north pole he was a driver her car was the driver after i mean the officers didn't know it drove to the motel there happens to be an empty traverse the officers don't know what happened because they did not see get in or out of the car they didn't see how they arrived at the motel certainly cloud got into the car at one point my truck my coke or my opposing counsel indicated that his daughter was in the car but again officer saw his hand a times and knew the cloud was not the one that hit in the gun under the driver's a crime be committed to a new who committed that crime and that person was not mr cloud all i want to say is i want to find both of you for your arguments and it's very disappointing to all of us that we don't have the opportunity to  ome down and greet you personally and shake your hands and say thank you for your service not only to your clients to the court but i can assure you that it is very