honor i'd like to start by discussed in the cases in the twenty eight j letter that was emitted by mr segment last week because i didn't have a chance to address both of my briefs and i think each of them is from the case before you today in paying versus the city of one park we have a situation in which the police actually witnessed a fight going on as they approached the scene and even more significantly as being approached this crowd and the two men that are fighting they see the defendant rapidly walking away from them and then he burst into a run  the other thing in pain is that the police had not detained or found the other person who was involved in the fight and so unlike in our case where the other person involved in the fight was sitting in a police car therefore subject to their police officers control there was no real reason for the police to fear that my client mr le were going to be able to find each other again and begin fighting again in the payne versus city of long hard case the whoever the opponent was of mr paine was out about what had happened there with him clearly an incident with a fight in the bar i think that it was perfectly appropriate for the sheriff's deputies to go into the bar and consented or not he acquiesced and went outside there was no physical force or threat involved no gun pointed by law enforcement were there no guns pointed there were four deputies in the bar the testimony of three witnesses is that he was asked three times to the first two times he said no i don't want to they come they ask me again no i don't want to and the third time not talking about consent i'm asking whether there would be something wrong with the violation of the fourth amendment for the officers who have reason to question somebody who thought they had a bar and sort of a rock area a place writing to him i would like to ask you these questions in a quiet place in private please come with us and not to the contents he doesn't want to but he's instructed to is that a fourth amendment violation i  something wrong with the with law enforcement saying let's go outside there's nothing wrong with that but i believe it is a seizure let's talk about what happens when they get outside he does go outside whether by consent floor compulsion acquiescence however you want to characterize it is it legitimate for law enforcement to take into consideration the nature of the person they're confronting in connection with a possible terry frisk i think it's the other words  his identification he was reaching for it and then sergeant john saying realizes he knows this person has another question and then asked to do the pat down but the point that i want to come back is if you read deputy press testimony on page thirty four he says that while they're inside the bar he does not feel the need to do a pack down he does not feel threatened by mr  while he's been calm they don't think he's drunk he's gone outside with he's now surrounded by four or five deputies there's a little variation in the testimony on that it's only at that point that they say we feel the need to pat him that's your statement for the united states when a police officer comes upon the aftermath of a fight the police officer has to be able to detain the combatants those involved in a fight even if the police officer didn't see the fight if a police officer comes upon what was clearly a fight either a nine one one call that there's a fight progress by the time the officer gets to the fights over what they see the bloody  torn shirt or they drive up to the scene and they see the aftermath of a fight such as this case the police have to be able to maintain the status quo detain the combatants and find out what's going on one of the no reasonable suspicion at that point i think it's too soon for the police officer as you get the facts to start with they come up and they find two people have died one of whom is the one who had the face problem that when they located mr laws george safes the hell's angel member inside the bar that one of the first things he said was i don't want to make a beef out of this the guy was drunk it's not that big it's something like that that's correct one of the very first things he said which suggests to me that what the officers questions in that's part of their questioning the assume that the drunk was the weapons guns because of the recent often shootout and the fights with the mongols and so the totality of the circumstances is such that the police are concerned they're going to get shot and they just want to do a quick pat down to make sure that the person they're dealing with i crime that had occurred before prior that the police had no personal knowledge of the information and even in that case they said they made exceptions were crimes where public safety was an issue such as in this case where the crime may continue such as this case or arrived to see a crowd of people they didn't see the fight and they see people running they didn't see the fight and the ninth circuit this court said in that case that the the policeman had articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that pain had been involved in a fight and that was the reason reasonable suspicion to detain and in city of doubles lake versus lawrence that's a north dakota supreme court case the police get a call of a fight by the time they get there the fight don one of the combatants is leaving and the north dakota supreme court steps forth says that there was reasonable suspicion to detain sets forth a number of one eighth circuit case i believe and a number of state cases across the country that sold to the police after arriving to the aftermath of the fight can contain briefly to find out what's going on to maintain the status quo that's all we want is for the police to be able to maintain the status quo briefly find out what's going wearing full hells angels colors i think the police had reasonable suspicion and all they wanted to do was do a quick pat down would be enough reasonable suspicion that he was the hills an if the police suspect him of committing some sort of crime and they're stopping a monetary stop and they know that the hells angels from that very community were involved in a shootout and the president of that very hells angels chapter had been killed their briefing it's a police department that there had for months before the shootout between the hell's angels in the mongols and that because of that the hells angels and the mongols were carrying weapons for self defense and possible retaliation thank you i will just briefly make a few last comments are one thing i just want to draw the court's attention to in closing this argument is the basic rule of terry that the police because they don't have a search warrant you need to use the least intrusive means possible to conduct their investigation and  logistics was asked to leave she presumably and other people in the bar presumably started the fight any of them could have been asked about what was the nature of the fight what actually happened for using the least intrusive means to conduct an investigation the police could have resorted to those kinds of questions and then just really briefly touch on the three cases in the twenty eight jail letter i know we've taken and i have i don't think you need to worry about what the fan and police actually start him in caged in conduct that they said was disturbing the peace and they had been warned by usher's hey we think this person is doing something that could cause a fight again so in that situation they have reason to think a fight is in and they're attempting to avoid a situation the government just said an argument is that it had to do with this the fact that this was docked in one person had been killed from stockton deputy press said that he had determined he would pack down a hell's angel no matter  you know certainly there could have been circumstances like let's say mr lamar i had been in a gang that had a beef with the hell's angels or there was any reason to think this had to do with the  it just makes no sense that inside the bar they didn't feel the need to turn him down but certainly when they get outside the bar it's fear right i think that you know perhaps they thought they could find a weapon on him but i don't think they can use a terry stop to look for evidence they can only do the pat down and a terry start if they believe the person is armed and dangerous at that time and i don't think they had a basis for that in this case