such searches are per se on reasonable under the fourth amendment unless the state can establish the existence of a recognized exception to the war requirement the stay contends in this case that the officers had the right to search mr cheers be as a search incident a rest with probably cause but i cannot cite any precedent in which an arrest and search took place on grounds as then it is those presented here the situation called for a terry stop and officer tucker simply went too far when he reached into mr  this court to conduct a de novo review of the suppression hearing in the legal issues there and and reversed the truck court's finding a probable cause the state agrees that when the officer reached into mr trapeze pocket he needed probably cause because it was a search under the fourth amendment and a terry stop and frisk and therefore valid under mere reasonable suspicion in fact the state's brief vigorously opposes the notion that this was a terry stop at all so this is a problem for the state because at the time of the search a reasonable person an officer took this position may have had reasonable suspicion but he certainly did not have probable cause the facts through the state relies on word none of which were illegal on their face involve nothing or overtly illegal and all involved conduct consistent with innocent behavior with regard to the transaction officer tucker witnessed a transaction between a a woman in the fort passenger in a vehicle an exchange of currency he did not see anything illegal during the exchange he did not hear any solicitation of the illegal controlled substances prior to the transaction he did not stop the buyer he did not determine if she had any controlled substances on her the officer did not recognize either the buyer or the car the vehicle as one involved and controlled substances or any illegal behavior in the past there were no informants or witnesses in this case who could have alerted the officer that i criminal activity was taking place on this block there's all the off who though that this was i know very right there was a ball conclus statement of trial by the officer that this was a higher price area but it was like a contradiction there was nothing there was nothing specific attributable to the circumstances in this case that would give the officer an indication that this was a  illegal activity the officer didn't say that the narcotics that activity in that neighborhood usually involve industrialising cars or that they involved persons who fit the description of the of the buyer in this case or that the car involved had at any known prior activity prior illegal activity had a reputation for that so i did just quote not switched but too much weight on this unsupported generalized statement about the criminal activity in the neighborhood statement and also the case on this i cite in my brief people the more it was a case where the officers were witnessing a transaction outside of a temporary known for drug activity the officer specific testified that this tavern had reasonable suspicion so the nature of the crime the neighborhood plus this conduct which on its face is not criminal at that point does not even give the officer reasonable suspicion in your case law so the officer starts to file the car he curves the car for lack of a turn signal he doesn't see any of base of maneuvers any erratic driving that would be indicative of a consciousness of guilt when he approaches the car he doesn't smell any need for paraphernalia anything that would give him an indication that drug use is going on in this car and he sees the defendant who you never says he recognizes as someone who has a reputation for this type of behavior anything he hasn't heard any soliciting he hasn't seen anyone he knows to be involved in criminal activity he's just putting a transaction which we know is he didn't even give a reasonable suspicion at that point together with a with a gesture which  illegal license plates and i believe loud music where the officer pulled the car over after he saw the defendant shifting in a seat and looked like he was placing something under his body of course again no reasonable suspicion even just from that from those big i think it's a big signal as to you know but there's a lot missing in this case first of all there's a single transaction in the most of the drug cases you see where the officer approaches someone and this is spec this involved in drug transaction there's at least three transactions in a row a lot of times there's there's specific information about either that corner or that building such as and people these are your united states through the facade all which is one of the cases i think is directly so the parties agreed that if the officer in that case witnessed as an actual solicitation he had probable cause to arrest the question before the court in that case was so the officers testimony that the slang term here heard  give him problems caused to believe that the give them reason to believe that the the fan in that case was actually soliciting marijuana and the court noted that it often takes the officers word that slang terms mean with what they say they mean and that they and oh yes and i think the only way you can justify a warrant was searched like this is if it is incident to arrest i question the same it has to be probably cause and i don't think i'll grant the issue was probable cause at all i think it was it was the question of whether the officer actually a crime and once the court accepted that slang term to mean what the officer said it meant then the officer witnessed a crime there was no question as to probable cause hearing everything he saw was consistent with innocent conduct and the state decided no authority in which soliciting from that car and that might have been a problem because the officer might have been able to see hear smell orders coming from the car or there's a variety of things of it in drug cases that give an officer probably because with this case which was just a generalized high crime area a known drug supply was under surveillance when the defendant went into the drugs the truck house was dropped off by a driver came back outside fifteen minutes later he conduct transaction with his driver and then is approached by the officers he has he merely puts a hand in his pocket covers that hand with his own covers that pocket with other hand the officer tells him to remove his hand at gunpoint phone or scratching an itch or any variety of innocent conduct in that case he's deliberately ignoring an officer who has a gun pointed at them to move his hands out of his pocket and the state in the case didn't even argue probable cause hearing as the state say i could reasonable suspicion in that case and the court still found no reason suspicion we had a transaction with a known drug spot and we had these these just years so in answer your question unfortunately i don't have a specific case  that we don't have a class here as opposed to what they write right yes and i and i think there's cases that that might so that there could have been reasonable suspicion here too but again the state is arguing that this is not a terry situation so inherent flaw in the state's argument because the state's arguing that that search was justified by probable cause the probable cause doesn't give the officer just the right to search the pocket because the officer the right to arrest mr christie take them to the station hold them for up to forty eight hours without the input of a detached neutral measure straight so you know they're just going to consider the ramifications of finding a problem cause in a case where and we have a couple of gestures an innocent kind and transactions consistent with innocent conduct no overtly criminal activity because in cases like these if you're giving officers license to search a pocket you're also we're asking the court to view this case based on the totality circumstances in this case the facts here and that yes there are bad and that we were we did not find a case of say exactly showed all of these things together our argument we maintain that probable cause a rose when the officer approached the vehicle was talking to the driver witness both two things both the defendant confirmed that he had seen what he'd seen earlier the defendant had cash the ten dollar bill in his hand had been to his pocket it was a testimony is is describes a movement away from the pocket as soon as the officer of the narcotics area the receipt of a ten dollar bill for an unknown purpose an unknown object if if an object at all and a subsequent stop and moving your hand away from the your pocket at that point it's more probable than not that a crime has occurred i you take into account the officers experience and what he had seen before all this experience is worth is that this is a high crime area and this is how narcotics transactions are sometimes from someone in a car on the street but it's how a lot of transactions occur are you believe it there's very few other kinds of transactions would occur on the side of the road at night and and again it's it's this whole circumstance the officers witness saying he'd seen this before investigate waiting and then after it instructing this defendant to put his hands on the head west side this is a defendant wouldn't be reaching for his pocket in any innocent way after being instructed  that the transaction contributed to probable cause was one contribution to probable cause a repetitive viewing of multiple transactions was not necessary and that's was a nice necessary this case because the defendant in that case was hawking his product in an open torrijos way in a way that the police through their experience interpreted to mean i have cannabis i have hydroponic end of this for sale a specialized form of cannabis so that was argue in that whole totality where you have the officers experience having seen these kinds of transactions before against the late at night on the side of the road all those things are you're correct that they're not a specific as specifically something a certain  search hundred times for every time he saw this type of activity do you think he really conducted a search every time he saw i i can't say for sure but i know in this case that he was prudent enough to wait and investigate both parties and again the excesses of cash negro we don't see that exact hand in hand we see i believe people going into a gang way and coming back with something no one's exchanging anything and again the kinds of furtive movements described in the engro are very generalized looking back and forth and we're in this case we're looking at a very specific movement toward a specific part  again it's late at night it's the side of the road the officer who knew what kind of transaction this was this was based on his experience and we're arguing that those factors raise the raise the probability that a crime has been committed above just again way and then again i can't i can't speak to the specifics about what kind of investigation was going on in that case but what i do know is that we have a hand in transaction again another distinction part of that case is that the fruit of movements if generalized under that term we're simply looking back and forth and we maintain that looking back and forth has far more innocent more probable cause to the transaction as i mentioned that the officer would not have based on that case where it's admitting that the officer would not have had to wait for multiple transactions especially considering this is a mobile drug deal essentially  that's right and once again based on those arguments the arguments we put forth and i prefer are we as you are from the fence condition they keep  very briefly i think the fact that grant is their best cases is telling as you're honest pointed out the fact that there the court did not require repetitive action in their case in order to find probable cause to because the cop officers actually witnessed a violation of the ordinance that was there was a violation on its face and i think this court recognizes that the the time that the state points out that this is nine o'clock at night i don't think that's an hour where it's more likely than not that any activity on the street is criminal might be dark but it's not three in the morning the just are not result in any pulling anything out of the pocket an if the defendant was reaching if the officer thought the defendant was reaching he'd probably expect to see something come out of their pocket he never did in this case the the state gives puts a lot of emphasis on the officers experience but nothing officers and i think it goes beyond a reasonable and inference from that experience when when the state repeatedly says that the officer saw hundreds of these similar transactions selfserving say he saw hundreds of similar transactions  forty year old woman and in a car and nine o'clock at night he said he saw generally hundreds of different transactions we don't know if those were you know guys on the corner where you know typically there's a there's two people in the corner one retrieves the controlled substance one takes the money i think that's that that might be what he was referring to he didn't specifically say that he saw this exact type of transaction that many times  with regard to doing grayle i don't think the state can distinguish based on that based on the lack of a transaction that case because there's so much more going on that i think it actually shows more of a suspicious behavior than a mere transaction this case is a score pointed out which all we know for all we know was and exchange of money we didn't even see the object in a bag if there was an object and it back and grayle head a known drug traffickers house he's coming out he goes to a club distinguish decide oh there's a transaction in both cases there's just there's in both cases the disobedience of the officers and while the state wants the credit officer tucker for waiting until after the transaction occurred and pulling over the car and waiting until you know the defendant makes a few gestures the officer was right to wait but the officer was had recourse under the constitution to make his move at that point but the move he had to make was a terry stop and when