getting the name right is the one where the person is in the parking lot kind of a sleep right cars not otherwise obstructing anything but what we said there was that just the concern for vandalism of the car was sufficient  the strongest argument here is is focused on whether or not miscreant he received at the point the officer instructed her to go away by her heart yet i think frankly i'm not persuaded on that point that's what i was getting at but yeah  trial court here made findings which you would disagree with had perhaps i would disagree with but the question is whether they were clear error having to do with essential watch the fair implication of what this person was told whether she the speak oz it was two properties away and because i gather she wasn't perhaps even in this approach to the police at the time that she cannot conclude that his instruction constituted show thore so it seems that what is not in dispute is what was said by officer act in sin and what miscreant he didn't response but whether those statements constitute a show  authority i would submit are a finding of law that was incorrect but that's not fair you use it you cite to a lot of out of circuit cases but it seems like one major difference here is you know the  started the encounter by telling the officer she was there to pick up mr soda but at that point officer incent did not reference mr soto he said good quite explicitly causing calling instruction return to your vehicle and wait until i can come speak to you and i think that articulation how it's as an instruction is a directive so would a reasonable person feel that they're free to leave when they're instructed by a police officer in the midst of says directly to her after she seen him and the other officer detaining mr soto go wait by your car until i come speak to you and then the second moment when he actually goes up and says in a conditional manner give me your can know who to read release mr soto to and i'm saying that the first moment when he's standing in front of the hotel and saying go over to settle the second one is even more heightened because first of all would a person feel reason or reasonable person feel free to leave i would submit that one in the morning a young woman isn't going to know what's wrong with checking out her idea it's one one thirty in the morning you know i think i think it's fine to be in another itself asking for ideas fine their right and so it's a couple things one is at the point he's asking her that he has already see surf by telling her wait there until i can talk to you then he goes and talks or and says here's the id and i would say that at that point he ramps up the seizure because he makes it conditional he says give me your personal information effectively give your personal information or your friend will be released that was an accurate in fact mr sort of was released but he did say give me your name and information so department policy is to search everything when you're looking at the search apparently policy they say is my right but when if you're searching everything the not the el monte policy but the general policy government argues dual purpose and i would submit that that would be the exceptions following the rule so if you say oh well we would have searched anyways then no inventory search would ever be considered in general rummaging because and among the things you're going to look at a note are there are things of average entry that al you but you're going to look at and know everything i understand we have doctor but it's a really hard job trying to figure out how to work with i think with that yeah just at the point that he as to her but he still goes ahead and does it anyways and then comes up with  declaration he arrests her based on the warrant and then he's driving her away and then he asked do you want to get anything out of the car so it's suggested he wasn't even trying to impound the car at the point here arrest or this news i mean she's arrested as i understand  some distance away from the car i know it's one of it's there's one property in between where they stop or in from the hotel there is another property and then there's this other woman right but i mean it's almost sort of happenstance that the officer even was aware that she had driven to that location right i mean i know he's he's able to see her but i don't know if i if you got arrested right here the police came in here and arrested you could they go and i mean then they figure hey you probably here let's go impound your car because in the parking lot that to me is like what connection does my car have to do with the fact that you're arrested here that's how i want to see the problem with the government and that's what i want to ask the government but anyway that's i thank  if we if we were to tackle the seizure question first if i could briefly articulate what the legal standard is driving whether or not there's a fourth amendment seizure in the first place and where the district court's factual findings fit into that overall analysis so here defendant is arguing that there was a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment when the officer requested the defendant wait by her car and wait for the officer to come speak with her and in order to be articulable under the fourth amendment as as a seizure there must be two things first the defendant's freedom of movement must have been constrained either by physical force or via show of authority and second of course that a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances would not feel free to terminate the encounter after that first prong the district court here at the r t o three specifically noted that defendant chose to stay and wait for officer atkinson and then accompany him to meet with so presumably because she wanted to pick up soto and expected that soto would be released to her and not because her freedom to move was restrained the government would submit that that is a factual finding there are two competing inferences here one remained at the scene because of the instruction that was put to her and second the defendant remained at the scene because as judge fisher noted she's the one who initiated this this encounter with the police in the first place she showed up to the scene with an ulterior motive i want to leave the so the first thing i would say in response to the request for id your honor is that this is not a claim that was made below the diff if you look at judge snyder's detailed fifteen page order there is no analysis whatsoever about that i believe that the the district court here made the specific finding the defendant chose to stay and wait for officer officer atkinson and then accompany him to meet soto all of that is happening because she has the all cheery motive to to leave the scene including staying there long enough for him to get his id and i'm going to check i would say i would say the plain language of the factual finding that i read at your two zero three i believe in is the period that your honor is talking about to the extent there's any ambiguity in the record about whether the defendant voluntarily stayed through the idea check i would submit that's because this claim was not presented below and so this claim that the request id staying while the id check was being run etc ramped up and extended the alleged seizure i would submit is subject to plain error review which which means that the defendant here bears the affirmative burden of showing that there was a clear obvious constitutional error now looking at the case law of the government sites and its answer in brief the d a s kasten ada case the kim case the irwin case all of these cases are are unanimous in holding that the mere request for there was no basis for stopping the government as it is not arguing that officer atkinson was conducting a terry stop that there was no reasonable suspicion he thought a point he made as serious as i recall that there is you can suggest ask somebody for their the i don't believe the factual record at all suggesting that i don't but that's what i'm asking him because that's what you said in your brain i don't believe that that's the claim that was made in our brief i believe the claim that was made in our brief is there was no seizure at the outset i understand there was no seizure at the point i know that they do that if the court were to conclude at some point during the initial encounter through the id being checked that there was in fact a fourth amendment seizure i agree with you your honor there has to be some objective basis that the government has to point to my point is that the district court was not incorrect in saying that at no point was there a seizure and as to the specific request for identification there's nothing the record is first of all not developed enough to really assess the facts of that claim and the i believe the burton the the adverse effects of that should fall to the defendant under plein air review because the defendant here raised the fourth amendment seizure claim in a reply brief below and in the course of raising it for the first time in a reply brief getting the opportunity having raised a new claim in a reply brief to fully litigated below never presented this case to the district court and so i would transition from there to the point where there was a fourth amendment seizure and that's at the point of the defendant's arrest the defendant was arrested that did constitute a fourth amendment seizure and below defendant argued that her arrest was not supported by probable cause that's not an argument that's been made now on appeals for the government would you submit that it's waived so really the only remaining question is the propriety of the impound an inventory search and here again judge burrs on i would submit that the record is not murky with respect to the district court's factual findings regarding what animated or what motivated the officers that's not our case law unlike the case law needs to work a case that she was relying on or that you were  mind seems quite clear that if the procedures weren't followed were substantially found that is a stand in for any direct pretext finding and we don't go any further we don't ask what their motive was directly just say if you're not following the rules it's not a good search so i'm not sure which case you're on or specifically relying on i will say looking at the supreme court case law and the circuits case law that's cited in our brief the standard is good faith compliance if we start with florida versus wells one of us what about our recent decision and johnson so in johnson i would submit your honor johnson is distinguishable and johnson relies upon a roscoe also plainly distinguishable because in the records in both of those cases the officers flatly admitted that they would not have done the search but for an investigatory motive the investigatory motive was the  think the question of whether they were following the protocols matters i would not go that far your honor i believe that the question of whether they were following protocol just into c n n of that it's fine but it's not separately  it's not separately dispositive it goes to the question of whether the whether the search was initiated with an impermissible motive or an improvement my problem with your argument is that she was not first of all the car has nothing to do with the offense for which she was arrested so there's no nexus whatsoever there and she's not even arrested the point at which she's arrested she's away from the car it's kind of just it's that's a let me just put the question to you under your argument if the officers came in and arrested you i've seen you drove here in park in our parking lot so if the officers came in here and arrested you and they said hey do you want to get anything out of your car and you said yeah i want to get my phone they say ok well we'll walk with you out there and then at that point they get to impound your car well your honor i would say yes because that's basically what happened and i would say yes and sighting on on two different lines with already in the record here so first this california vehicle code section twenty two six fifty we're talking about the fourth amendment why would the fourth amendment permit the officers to impound your car there's no reason for them to do that whatsoever i would submit first of all the officers if it appears from the record know that defendant arrived at the scene in the car what if he didn't but say they didn't see that and she said to them as they were handcuffing are all but i need my phone out of the car and they said where's your car and she said oh it's three blocks away they said ok we'll take you over there your position has to be that yeah they still could impound the car at that point if it's justifiable under the community care taking think we're going to take the car to do that well so in certain circumstances the community care taking doctrine allows for the empowerment of a car without a formal arrest such as in situations where the where the car tags are expired or where the suggesting either that the car poses itself a safety risk or in this case and the this court's decision recently united states versus torres affirms that one of the bonafide community care taking functions is to protect a defendant  the they only things that were recorded were things and they said they were looking for high value things but they were high things that weren't recorded like a cell phone and some other thing i forget well the so the cell phone was booked with the device but there's something else that it was booked i'm sorry the defendant with her property at the time of arrest her personal property the cell phone was booked with her as personal property that was in her possession at the time of arrest so it wasn't happy with the quote anything the only things that it was a croft reference in the inventory form to essentially another form that was directly related to the things most of what was in that car was i don't know if you can't quite tell what it was looked at but it certainly wasn't recorded so i have two points in response to that again bringing the court back to what the government that the policy requires and does have a good faith safe harbor the policy requires that the officers must be as thorough as practical under the circumstances and here the the car was was chock full of different items some had eviden value some didn't the government would submit that the analysis here doesn't change just because the high value items fakery well it was in the middle of the night in a high crime area officer atkinson did testify that the booking procedures of ian p d required two officers to buy one get after they got a card of the station if they really like doing so are doing it i would submit there are alternatives here there are alternatives ways that this could have gone but colorado bars i'm on the notion that this is the only thing that was practical it's clearly not could take the car and then after i got there that so that they could have done that i wasn't so it's not true that it wasn't practical it is the district court credited the officers explanation that he was logging some of the items in the car so that he would know before the car was ever impounded what was in the car and this and the supreme court in colorado vs print is even just made of all that he did not follow the written down protocol even ballpark one way i would i would offer to give the court some comfort is that the court is obviously able to affirm on any basis supported by the record and as the government noted in its brief below one of the ways that the government argued that the search here could be justified is upon the officers lawful initial entry into the vehicle if we are to assume that the officers in this will entry was lawful the policy here clearly said that the officer was permitted to search all containers and not in fact permitted but required search all containers in the vehicle and upon searching the vehicle upon opening the first container the officer finds three hundred stolen access devices and at that point has probable cause that a crime has been committed so the government argued below that as long as the initial entry into the vehicle was justified under the inventory policy once the officer independently define develop probable cause that a crime had been committed the auto search exception should take over and justify the search similarly if the court were to look at any basis in the record to affirm the plain view doctrine operates in the exact same way the plain view doctrine requires that the officers are lawfully present in the place to be searched and that the immediately delete or that the illegal nature of the items to be seized is immediately apparent to the have somebody who walked up to the police right but then when that but when you go walk up and then say stop and go to your car wait until i talk to you i think a reasonable person say i'm not free to leave because the directive is i need to wait until they come talk to me and then there's the second point when it's ramped up and saying all right we have the police know that she's there to pick up mr soto and she says we basically won't release soto until you give us your name and your date of birth and so that wrap up and that is conditional so that why would she feel free to leave if she basically the reason she's there is to pick up a soldier and he won't be released until she gives information but i still want to point out that it's the standard to stand there that's what she said right but that i think the choosing to stay there was the i think the question of whether she submitted to the authority and i'm saying that that's the way it was contingent on the on the finding sentence before that she was feeling yes yes so it's an independent exaction yes and then just the other point was in terms of not following protocol you know what was not included was a large purse several duffel bags i mean this is the big items  you're not following them if you're not following the protocol but then you somehow find something then you really see this is why on thing about this case i mean i can't tell whether they were following protocol as to the search where they really weren't following protocol as to what they wrote down but i know what just the record suggestion you know about whether they went through everything i mean it systematically i mean we're stuffs so we know that they weren't even interested in the car until she said i want to get my phone out of the car and then they asked to search she says i have rights i'm not going to ask you and then they get more interested and so then when they have this interest their interest is piqued and their eyes sit in that the general rummaging is the fact that they're only focusing on the evidence or i think the only way to find out how that was done is to look at the written record i don't think there's anything else to point us to remind us what the record shows about that oh yeah so the only thing we have i think is the inventory which doesn't include all these big items but not