nathaniel matlock appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress filed in the northern district of iowa this was a case of a terry frisk that mr matlock submit was unconstitutional he like mystery  pled guilty pursuant to a conditional plea agreement preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress mr matlock argument on appeal is that the law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the terry frisk that led to the discovery of the firearm for which mr matlock was convicted i think it's very important in this case to consider the context in the tally the circumstances analysis with respect to whether there is reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed and dangerous at the time that the terry frisk was conducted this was a routine traffic stop for an equipment violation mr matlock was not the driver instead he was a back seat passenger  driver had been arrested for driving with a suspended or revoked license it was determined that none of the other three occupants in the car including mr matlock had a valid license to drive at that point with the driver in custody and with the situation under control officer troy wilson from the waterloo iowa police department made the determination that he was going to tow the vehicle and i believe there's insurance on the vehicle either nonetheless there was no lawful way that the vehicle could be transported other than by towing it at that point at that point in time that's the point of time at which officer choy wilson made the decision to conduct the terry frisk of mr matlock and we'll get into why as the argument progresses but i do think the context and the time at which the first was conducted is very important because at that point the traffic stop was essentially over with the only thing left to do was to tow the vehicle away from the scene the driver was under arrest for her traffic violation at that point it would have been a reasonable thing to do to terminate the encounter altogether to let mr matlock and the other occupant leave the area they were going to drive the vehicle they were in trouble for any other reason in that respect that's why mr matlock argues that there is not reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and dangerous at the point at which the frisk was conducted point there is a video of the encounter between officer wilson and mr matlock and evidence is exhibit governments exhibit at the time of the frisk that i thought it was daytime car he gave a response when it was clear that he was going to be frisked that it wasn't can i go home but it was kind of what are you doing why why is this happening at this point but i agree there is there was no either statement from officer wilson saying you're free to go or statement express to him from mr matlock that he wanted to leave at that point nonetheless that is the context in which the frisk was conducted the stop was over with there was nothing more to do the determination had already been made t vehicle so on that basis that's the basis that the court should view the rest of the factors that issue from that's the context of the situation the government has offered a number of justifications for the friskier both what i'd call general and specific the general bases for the frisk according to officer wilson you know the government was that this happened to be a high crime area i submit to the court that the evidence on that score was equivocal there was evidence from the defense side that this particular neighborhood wasn't subject to much in the way of serious gun crime there was a homicide in the area in the recent time but otherwise of the reports that the defense produced with respect to police encounters in that area over a period of time before the the frisk didn't suggest a strong indication of violence in that area the government offered further evidence of a broader area of waterloo suggesting that it was a more high crime area but the evidence was equivocal on that on that grounds of course it's black letter law that being a high being in a high crime area alone is not sufficient to justify a frisk such as that what  officer wills can be relevant yes it's clear from supreme court jurisprudence that it can be relevant but it's not determine it on its own a fighting point of contention between the parties below was mr matt locks alleged connection t gangs and whether that a particular gang and whether that justified the frisk as well there are cases from this court united states versus roelant united states versus cornelius both cited in the party's briefs suggesting that gang membership is something that an officer can consider it's not enough on its own but it is a factor in the terry analysis this was a bit different because there was no evidence that mr matlock himself was a member of the particular gang that the officer thought he was associated with this is a question of line drawing and it becomes very difficult in my view to rely upon alleged gang association if we're not able to draw a line the person is a documented known verified gang member that's not what mr matlock was officer wilson believe he was associated with gang members in the district court bolos said it's an exercise in semantics to draw difference between the two but you have to draw a line you can imagine a circumstance to take an extreme rehab an individual whose father was a gang member but that individual has risen above got a ph d from the university of iowa happened to be walking through a high crime area is that enough under the analysis i recognize that's not this case but you have to draw the line somewhere obviously in the line should be drawn a documented verified gang membership as far as specific bases that officer wilson relied upon he relied on three instances of which he was allegedly aware of mr matlock being at least associated with some of the ngt in relation to a firearm only one of the alleged instances involved an allegation that mr matlock himself brandished a firearm that was the may eleventh two thousand and sixteen alleged and where mr matlock ex girlfriend reported to police that mr matlock had brandished a firearm in an incident and it doesn't appear that mr matlock was ever charged in of course not convicted for any allegations so that was pretty thin on the other two instances involved in informant back in march two thousand and fourteen telling police that mr matlock was involved in a shots fired call in some nebulous way it was more than two years before this terry frisk and the other incident was a march twenty eighth two thousand and sixteen incident where officer troy wilson himself was dispatched the shots fired called were appeared that mr matlock was simply a witness in the vehicle were shots religiously or shots religiously from that stayed on the scene in essentially acted as a witness didn't have a firearm and there was no specific allegation that he was the individual who shot the gun in that instance  matlock and officer wilson because he has the driver arrested for the traffic citation he determines that it's mr matlock in the back seat he goes directly to mr matlock he doesn't go to the other back seat passenger he doesn't go to the front seat passenger which if that were the policy that would seem to be the reasonable thing to do this was something that was targeted at mr matlock with the court's permission to remain reserve the right of my time for  on l street logan street l block as it's referred to by the gang members in the area there really is no routine traffic stop the officer who did the pat down in this case is a member of a specialized in crime action team and what is in the record is that when this stopped for a bad tail light was in acted three other officers came to the scene that is the fact that is the situation in waterloo at the time and there is the logan block where a  when the black flag mafia people who are on l block logan street they're in the wrong part of town they are at risk it is a situation culturally there that would cause the visiting parties to be at risk it is a high crime area you can pull out the stats and compare and contrast but the bottom line is the officers in this view kept team know that it's right a reasonable articulable cause to believe that criminal activity and then are you scared officer is a reason to believe that this man is armed and dangerous is the second prong  you know maybe not as thoroughly as possible but it's a car driven by a person with no license the front seat passenger has no license in korea is often made is anybody in this car able to drive this car home the folks in the backseat is made and at that point there's a oh wow moment in the officer's mind because he recognizes the defendant who is sitting in the back he knows him by name he knows him from at least three previous meetings having to do with shots fired or gun possession he is the officer at this point is for lack of a better term scared his reason to believe that this man has had firearms and the latest being two months earlier than this july stop of significance also car it wasn't fleshed out and that wasn't the reason though for the tow what is on the record your honor excuse me is that there is an open container a booze between the defendant and his pal all right sorry before that even this defendant was patted down because the officer recognized him he now was in a blacked out car the windows were blacked out in the rear of the car when the officer recognized to it was instantly him put his hands up against the car the defendant didn't do that right away there was a pause there was a why me at moment and this officer knew him with a booze bottle of booze sitting between him in a spot pout and that's that's a criminal offense itself actually open container in iowa which is another matter but before that was even addressed passengers yes your honor that's right you can't have a bottle of booze between you there's a smell of booze that's that's that's in the record of course here but there would be a reason actually to arrest the folks in the back near that bottle of booze at least probable cause but the matter was it didn't get that far because once the defendant was recognized as a gun carrying person as late as two months earlier and in three distinct situations that his officer knew he should have been patted down it's in o'clock in the evening it's not dark it's july but would you rather be shot in the daylight or would you rather be shot at night officer is the question  involved or for whatever reason he sees a leading to the rightly right it's ok even if it's a consensual encounter but there has to be some reason for an encounter to be prolonged enough to i would do respect there was no stop watching on this judge but it was it was a it was a quick encounter it's a stopped people out of the car the folks in the back who are not visible once they get out this officer recognizes this defendant and well say something about what to do with the occupants when you made it legitimate decision that i'm sure they do but i'm not testifying here and it's not in the record and you're right about that my argument is it doesn't get that far it's it's an examination of the folks in the vehicle what are we going to do here how do we address this when the folks in the back come out we smell booze we see an open container but before any of that defendant is recognized and the officer is scared for that's my term but you teach where you're scared and then articulate that why were you why were you worried that this guy would have a weapon a knife or a gun or something that could hurt you while you're continu on with this investigation on what to do with the car what to do with the bottle what to do with the scene as it is it didn't get any further than the defendant being patted down a forty caliber pistol was in his waistband t forth with other officers his being there day to day to day with in full understanding of what's going on eight o'clock in the afternoon on el block almost things come into play here you can have a divide and conquer sort of a situation where you pick this all apart it's the t or get to a discount so thank you for your thank you appreciate very briefly your honor your honors the phrase smacks of recent invention was quoted in the earlier argument and that's what the government's position is with respect to this alcohol on the back of the vehicle it had nothing to do with the stop it had nothing to do with the extension of the loan was investigated for open container no one was arrested for open container there was no reason at that point to continue to teen mr matlock there's no reason for the frisk the discourse should be reversed like ice that's a touch of you to pick up  r cases submitted a move to take it under consideration