of september th two thousand and seventy two officers were dispatched to the house of ms brandy smith they had a misdemeanor warrant for her arrest for failure to appear in court proceedings when they arrived at the residence they pulled their cars into the driveway of park behind a black chevrolet camaro this camaro was parked in the front of one of the post supporting the car or it was an open car for the st patrol car park forty five feet behind the black camaro the nd approach are forty five feet behind the st two to three seconds after the officers arrived they testified that mr barrow exited the driver's side of the black chevrolet camaro and began walking toward the car t within a few seconds of the st officer on the scene ordered mr bell to stop his words were stopped don't walk off at that point mr darrow allegedly began  of criminal activity the district court asked how is this different from illinois versus wardlaw in illinois versus wardlaw you had a situation where the officers went to high crime area and mr ward know to go back to your question about wardlow wardlow saw the caravan of police cars and that's the language from the case of care there were four patrol car ours with eight officers when they arrived he immediately to flight and they describe this as good low flight meaning that he was running and this is not the situation with mr daryl st officer latch testified that when he arrived at the residence of mr darr walking toward the car or he was immediately ordered to stop at that point the officers did not notice any weapons in his hand he did have a brown paper bag in one hand but the officers did not understand the contents that point after he was ordered the nd time to stop he were turned or went to the officers when he was standing there with one of them the officer noticed that he had knife sheets in the waistband of his pants based on that for  houses right nearby or buildings very few trees and they were in the rear of the right side other than that it was an open area with a fairly well kept yard the driveway was late the according to the officer was sufficient enough for three street they activated their lights to encourage him to move to the side of the road and as he tried to move to the side he stumbled leading them to reasonably believe that he might be intoxicated which would be a violation of texas law they pulled over and began questioning him that out not only suspected public intoxication but they were concerned about his welfare since he was standing in the middle of the road night in the dark and also the concern for public safety  if they were there to rest of the body it would not have been know to mr darrow or the general public also as mentioned there was no indication that anybody was located inside the residence and in terms of the officers conceded that he believed it was but there was no testimony elicited from the officer one way or the other but that's what the record books and you're out of in our brief we decided to do primary cases so they both drive to brandy smith's residence and pull into the driveway to mark the one to their in the driveway there's a black camero in front of  so they've got it that's the end of the house from the far left side he gets out and is walking towards the back respond to the stop or in fact he starts walking fast it's so bad in my he doesn't stop we don't have a seizure at that point nor stop he starts walking fast i think opposing counsel is going to what is your reasonable suspicion in order to justify the st stop order since the st operator is the show of force well what in terms of that i take it what you're saying is it's not just cities leaving the carcass that could be just innocent continuation of prior activity it's it's where he's going and specifically towards a house that is a known place of criminal activity it is it and i would respectfully start is it reasonable for them to conclude when he's walking down the side of the house the far side of the house could go into the back of the house they've only got seconds they've got one to decide that they can't do that if one is what's the innocent explanation for going normally go to  this law enforcement officer allow him to get behind the house and his is what he said yes judge i can't do that but if you're point that it's unusual for somebody to be doing that as opposed to going to the front door it isn't so the idea that would be my you know why would i be unusual to spell it out for us because of a colleague who these officers pulled right in behind you and the moment they pulled up he gets out and starts walking down the side of the house or the kid's district judges have nothing suspicious about any of that in here in the say if this house were in in the city and it was not a known drug house that there would be palmetto apartments and they park next to you heels in the passenger side of the car the driver gets out and starts to walk away and pay for what the driver right it in this case that is not what happened here and in fact in the hill case under your honor all the decision it was an interesting statement of will this decision it says context is the key in the context of  was we got officers on a roving patrol to just pull up next to a card in the park because that's not what we have here here we have officers that are duty to serve an arrest warrant they've got it is in the drug house were crimes of occur and ulcers are not charged with ignoring that fact they've got to take that into consideration so they got some felt billingsley got some and then when they pull up there we've got that element when we make our reasonable articulable determination that several things going to that evaluation the experience of the officers common sense in the inferences from the factual scenario that we have if he gets behind the house it's a game changer you would concede judge it on this was a point i assume that the mere fact that this is a criminal potential criminal area known drug house alone is not enough it's not right you got you you're saying if i understand you correctly is the key distinguishing factor is that he's walking toward the back of the house and that's somehow unusual that it's not an idea that he said it so these won't from this standpoint there's a case folks now they tell him to stop now why did they do that internet itself walking out of the back of a bar with your hand in your pocket is not against the  beer in your hand and but all sorts have to make an instantaneous determination is this potentially dangerous which really is what happened in terry the similar case here terry watch these guys but nd this guy's made doesn't passes in front of the store something is on usual here in this think the standard is it's criminal activity that it's not probable cause it's the minimum wage level of justification and so with that being in mind the officers approached us and frisk defines a gun and we're not supposed to look at that you know they're all in this case got a gun in his pocket and i understand and appreciate that that's not the determining factor it's not but we're telling these officers be smart in on your based on your experience know what's going on around you because you've got to get home  they've got to walk around the house they're probably got to draw their weapon and they've got to walk around the house see what's going on now we just elevated this whole situation we're drawn weapons court behind the house i don't understand why that necessarily f but he's walking away before the pilot to walk away but the officers have to make a determination when he gets behind the house out of the building that's what they have to they have to stop that before it that and that was just one here was a different circumstance that we had to look at the facts on we've got to ride out taste where the guy is drop on the side of the road that's a different evaluation and this particular case is the guy walked away kidnapped their field of vision case at a known drug location you can see that if another person was there walking up and down the sidewalk walking away from that house or otherwise just but the but the getting out and leaving walking to get out of the field of the you know i would expect that sir that is the reasonable it is reasonable and it's articulable and it's suspicious activity because it calls to law enforcement officers to change their course of conduct at this location i would respectfully assert that the hill case is distinguishable because they were on a roving patrol actually just officer latch testified he never got more than twenty to twenty five feet away from his car in other words he wasn't even on the other side of the car and we suggest there's nothing inherently suspicious about somebody being behind a building or behind  house that there's no you can see that's not typical if somebody is visiting a house they typically know the front door down there you know i would not concede that and the reason why is because especially in the country  especially you know i grew up in a very similar house and we always always used the carport door that's where you park your car it was the quickest access inside the house we hardly ever opened our very front door now would assume that a law enforcement officer would go to th talking about officer latches truck all he testified to was where or how far away mr barrett was from his car when he turned around now the idea of him going back of the house you know even if that is the case we still do not concede that that's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and i would note there are two distinct times during this suppression hearing when officer was left was asked did you observe mr darr and gazed in any criminal activity having committed or been involved in any criminal activity or was he about to be involved in any criminal activity at both times both separate  so i understand mr leary's point about this being a split nd decision the officers could have easily handled this in a different manner sir would you mind speaking to us for a nd please there are other ways they could approach this without a show of authority they decided to do that instantaneously without there being a reasonable suspicion that he was about to give the prosecution or that he had any weapons of instead of saying stop they should have said sir well they could have lose a lot of police officer every investor relations board that's a dangerous situation as i read this record it was a it was a side of criminal activity and they were going there to arrest someone