ok this is better for everyone but not personally i have a say something really good i'm not sure there's any real dispute about here we have the benefit mendenhall just you know greeting and brandywine so we know that the question is whether the police conduct would have made a reasonable innocent person think that their liberty liberty had been restrained in some way  or there isn't one test for walking and one has for driving the test is whether a reasonable innocent person would feel that their liberty was restrained in some way so you know here because the circumstances are that he was in a car operating a car you know weaving the chances whether he could have driven away whether or not he could have driven away the act of parking in such a way that wait which of course we think it's completely absurd that the police from his liberty was restrained by blocking a car if you see the police lock your car you don't think you can drive away you think you can walk people straightforward and to get out he would have had to make several take maneuvers and here also would have hit the police officer who walked in front of his car to get around to the driver's side of his cheek which of different students because having watched the video it seems like they park get out of the car and really hostile toward  and that would make a difference i think to whether a reasonable person to mr delaney's position would have seen that as a show of authority or would have felt free to leave the fact of the speed with which they exit the car and head toward his parked car would seem to me to factor into whether he felt free to leave before they get very far yes i think that's true and now that we have important to your theory that the seizure occurred when the officers pulled him and with their white on behind the defendant's car or from the cars the later we go into the into the action even when the police get out you've got a finding from the district court that you know that's when they saw something was ok so your reasonable suspicion case gets harder right  please comment i i think that it is significant this all happened so quickly within ninety seconds they're opening the car door but it is significant that they pull and when you watch the video you'll hear  ere you know that there was a seizure a few seconds later i think it is significant could be turned on the lights the most significant factor of course is that being blocked his car but no reasonable person whose car his memoir and is under the glare of those high intensity lights would think that they were not the subject of their stuff but then they were just freedom drive away walk away that there leave under your st theory which is that the location of the police cruiser was the seizure what is the show over thirty and what is the evidence of mr delay kissing the notion that if you really felt that this was a police stop aimed at him that as soon as the car parked he wouldn't ban him why was it wouldn't right why why doesn't the so the kissing began before the show of authority and the nd point is that  car he might to the back of the alley with his flashlight to look for other people and officer willis testified that as he approached the car he made casual conversation and asked the occupants whether they had heard gunshots and so that's i think inconsistent with the finding that something about the police's exit from their vehicle would have been an additional show of authority sufficient to establish a seizure and even  upon exiting the car officer willis saw the open sunroof and opened passenger side window from which the defendant could have been shooting with a gun why didn't why didn't we do address the in the scene  were not free to disregard the police and go about their business of the law officers did was parked their car in what the district court found to be a natural parking position they did not block the defendant's car they were not immediately in front the legal question of whether a person whether the police's actions would have caused a reasonable person not feel as though they were at liberty to go about their business to then play out the following scenario and imagine what the officers coder could not choose to do in fact the test presupposes a reasonable innocent person and so i reasonable innocent person would believe that if the officers left them free to go about their business trained in their eyes wouldn't that cause a reasonable person feel like it's not really appropriate for them to try to leave and that the government doesn't really just use officers it seems like the defendant's case implicitly is that in order not to seize this defendant that cruiser would have had to pull into one of the many spaces that was emptied on that near side of the jeep and one question i have is actual matter was whether that would have made the light ineffective in illuminating the car area but it sounds like you're saying that the light would have remained effective in adequately illuminating the area that the defendant's argument a lot of it was that the officer should hold past the defendant's car into the back of the parking lot and that and that dish or projected that argument because it would have required the officers walk back into gosh i didn't read that to be the defendant's argument but i did you're right the district court talked about sixty didn't think they had a past but when you see the nd video in the record you just raised the question with all this empty spaces if someone not wanting to hear if a police officer did not want to execute a show of force there were there were places to park there were places to pull in your honor although in response to your question and judge wilkinson question earlier my nd response is the dish report found this to be a natural parking spot the officers had to pull in far enough not to block the parking lot driveway they just apart from that had they pulled further or they would of put themselves in danger and they did not block the alternatives were seriously the question is whether the actions of the officers at that moment was a seizure the and explain to me why ship fact that the officers chose not to use the parking space i don't think so here i think the fact that they chose not to park directly from the defendant's car leaving him a way of driving away and that's all that occurred th i think the answer is no your honor and for that answer i rely on one of the st circuit cases that we cited in our brief whose name i go out on my fingertips but the court there discussed the inherent coercion in any police service and encounter and discuss the fact that notwithstanding that inherent coercion that was not a factor taken into consideration during question whether a person ha difficult and perhaps even dangerous for the person to try to move around in the person certainly doesn't want to re enter the police vehicle unintentionally or hit  the only thing i can go back to your honor's is that they are the cases that i've read and the st circuits suggestion that this inherent element of course and it's not something i should consider we don't decide cases you know based on whether breaking new ground that neither the supreme court nor other circuits have yet broken if it were to impute to the defendant in this case a feeling that he had been seized because he was concerned that if you got out of the car he would be shot or he was concerned that if you hold forward he would hit an officer who had not yet exit the car and again your honor that attempt oral arsonist for because once the officers exit the car they knew more toward reasonable articulable suspicion than they did before the exit therefore so i would not incur i don't think the court needs to break new ground in order to decide this case let's  had located them to within a block or so based on their training and experience that they drove to the location where they believe the gunshots had come from and that the defendant was and his girlfriend were the st and only people they saw in that one minute that when they approached the defendant that they saw no other people either in the parking lot or on the way and that when they before they got out of the car in response to their present presence disher porter the mislead the place but i think the take away from it being very strange very unusual and bizarre is that it could have heightened an officer's suspicions because it was designed to throw them throw off their suspicions but she did didn't find but she didn't reject it either and if i think it's a natural it flows naturally from her finding that it was highly unusual and that it mattered to the reasonable articulable suspicion analysis was that it of conduct as a command perhaps because to rule otherwise would be to prevent officers from safely visiting her vehicles at night and i don't know if that's correct that's a no finding on us but i'd be interested to know your response and these are officers reacting in a area where apparently a lot of people are shooting off guns it's night and they come into this some a confined area and the law requires that we have a lot of deference to officers judgments in the moment and on the ground of course but they hear me really had  not free to leave when officers impede our cars movement in some way so if you could that distinguishes this case from boston let me ask you this i realize this is not this case and handles earlier question suggested it may not be even part of the inquiry whether they have another alternative but assuming the same information about gunshots and they're trying to trace them to a location if this parking area had been full and so there was only the driving and lame for the police to access and if mr joined his car were the last in the row by hypothesis i think your position is that the officers would have had to park out on the street and go around but if they if they polled and they saw someone in a car who they wanted to ask questions about they would have but we did argue below and we did argue on appeal that there was no evidence and that it was meaningless whether there were other people walking down the street because we don't know we were shots came from