would be a simple case of illegal re entry where the only two elements are whether the person has previously been deported and whether they legally reenter the country when they were detained but from the spring two very interesting issues the first one relates to the fourth amendment in the district court's denial of the motion to quash that we filed in that court without an evidentiary hearing  to make it very brief the the facts is my client was a passenger in his feet in his spouse's car undercover chicago police department in an unmarked car on a special detail according to the police reports in the motion filed executed a traffic stop because they believed that the driver the spouse of my client was on herself we filed a motion to quash the stop an arrest and now subsequent to that after the stop was executed my client was taken out of the car gave an incorrect name during a frist there was some marijuana found a very small amount in his shoe or sock  back at the police station they they uncovered his name his identity and then the fact that he was illegally in the country that the issue that is alarming in the district court  is in granting the i'm sorry in denying the most without an evidentiary hearing district court found that the evidence of identity is not susceptible to a fourth amendment analysis and cannot be  well it's a very important i know i disagree with their conclusion and it's obviously a very critical piece of evidence to the government's case in this particular case but when you look at the fourth amendment is whole and the impact it has essentially essentially it's the ultimate bootstrap argument that well once we found out that you're who you are and you're not supposed to be here than that justifies the stop that was not proper in its europe yes in going in is our brief illustrates in the look lopez mendoza case the district court in the government in our case clung to the ruling as a related to the jurisdictional issue raised in in the mendoza lopez case lopez mendoza case there were two issues addressed separately by the court in that opinion one being jurisdictional and one being evidentiary and they were addressed separately and actually they were brought in separate cases or to the defendant's repellents in that case and at the end of the lopez mendoza line of cases after specifying and pointing out that its ruling related to a civil deportation proceeding not a criminal case that the evidence the evidentiary issue concerning identity was still subject to a fourth amendment analysis on a motion to watch so i think that in in the application of their case blindly or just automatically to the issue of identity in an evidentiary or a motion to quash fourth amendment analysis is improper and expands they have a ruling to essentially abrogate fourth amendment any police officer can come up to any individual on a street with no reason whatsoever and start inquiring about identity staining that person to and to make an inquiry about identity because identity would be specifically accepted is an exception to the fourth amendment and i don't believe that that's what lopez mendoza meant to do but that's what it would do with if it read this way also in the garcia garcia opinion which is the circuits opinion even though that is a criminal case i don't believe that first of all i in reading that case i believe the application of lopez mendoza was in dicta but in the facts of that case it occurred after an evidentiary hearing and after the officers and that case for a period of time since surveilling the i believe it was a garage where the search was deemed to be you know an inappropriate in the appended to the evidence in that search during surveillance they were able to confirm that person's identity suppressed even if it was obtained in hialeah sion of the fourth amendment well the difference though is is they were aware of his identity prior to his arrest and garcia garcia in our case they had no idea who my client was he was at the time and in the same passenger in a car on a busy street at about five forty five in the afternoon on the southwest side of chicago he would have driven right by and they wouldn't have known if it was him or you know any any other person it might have been at least from the evidence it was produced in the district courts like i believe it's it's distinguishable from garcia garcia because as i said the police and garcia garcia knew  identity prior to the search and independent of any illegal conduct also i believe in if i'm reading that case correct that the what the government that any reference lopez mendoza's the basis for the ruling and garcia garcia was dictated as opposed to holding it was it seemed to be kind of a throw in statement after they had already concluded that there was sufficient other evidence independent of an illegal search  other then the other issue in this case is similar to the issue you heard in the in the prior argument except it's not a career criminal application it's it comes out of the   here or there's some there's some differences in this series of laws and such a flux right now i don't want to call them minor but because they may be significant here the the section that was applied the language in the guideline states only that a crime of violence doesn't define the crime of violence in the language of the of the guideline  doesn't contain the force clause language or the residual clause language again and i'm referring only to the sentencing guidelines language the further information used in this case to me at the sixteen point aggravated robbery so it's our position that number under under johnson it's true there's some talk about to johnson's one and the twenty fifteen when the twenty ten that the application notes are not definitional and cannot be used and when left with that we have merely a crime of violence with no other specifics in this particular section that was used to enhance and based on that i would say that the enhancement was improper because they're not in in i would further say they ought to since the application notes are not definitional the forced clause it's contained in the application notes cannot be used in this particular case for the sixteen level and han the other points and i realize i'm short on time so i want to just touch on these in the but there's any questions is the as i said aggravated robbery was the the prior in this case that triggered  the district court and sentencing relied a lot on the crime of robbery which is specifically stated in the application notes to the section in addition to the argument that there should not be definitional our position is in illinois a debate of robbery as odd as it may seem on its face wouldn't satisfy the strict definition of a crime of violence because in its section there is allowed for a robbery behind that of violence additionally illinois robbery cases and interpret in the amount of force and i'm sure this panel is where is a very slight amount of harm specifically the illinois supreme court hundred nine held that removing a pearl necklace from the victim's neck just the force of pulling the necklace from the neck was sufficient for robbery under illinois however the problem with applying that to the two thousand and ten johnson opinions definition of violence and the amount of violence is that they have courses directed at property as opposed to a person and pearl necklace is are not as strong as probably any one of us would like it takes very little force whatsoever to to break that in light of the short amount of time and being able to reserve whatever i have left it's the highlights of the  somewhere in the record but there was an odor of cannabis emanating from the vehicle and that's what led to the search of the passengers well but the runner i guess what it comes back to is that whether or not the stop was in fact lawful or was in fact a violation of the fourth amendment is irrelevant to the question of whether the defendant's identity can be suppressed and so i'll talk a little bit more about that first and foremost the supreme court has already weighed in on this issue and  where perhaps you know if the police were to as an example stop everyone who is in a building obtain everyone's d n a and try to match that identity to evidence from other bands for example that's very distinct from the situation that we have in in this case where the identity is simply used to determine who mr omer always was and his very presence in the united states in conjunction with there's a legal status that in and of evidence such as fingerprints or evidence of an outstanding warrant in the defendant's name the government's position on that is that evidence of fingerprints or i've been so would lead to the existence of a warrant is not surprised at all but i don't think the court even needs to reach back brought up the conclusion for purposes of of this case and i think your question is a good segue to talk about  he street which was the supremes court case that's come down since the parties filed their briefs and in st we had a scenario where an individual is stopped in violation of the fourth amendment he pleased officer against that individual's identity learns that there's a preexisting arrest warrant places the individual under arrest and then obtains incriminating evidence and the question in that case was whether the existence of a valid preexisting warrant would simply would atten e the discovery of the evidence post arrest from the illegal stop it's interesting in the courts analysis in st is that it's taken as a given it's taken for granted that the evidence of identity is not going to be surprised there in other words there's never a question that perhaps this person's identity will be surprised and the valid preexisting arrest warrant can't be executed for all the reasons we've talked about this identity fundamentally is not suppressed in every criminal case with respect to jurisdiction with respect to evidence who a person is simply can't be surprised and that's what the supreme court has held and that's what this court has held as well and the defendant has asked you to overturn that sound president but there are good reasons not to do that and just to draw out what the defense is asking you to do here if a district court were to grant a motion to suppress in the circumstances that the defendant had here he would simply walk out of the courtroom and be subject to rearrest and so there's no deterrence value in applying the fourth amendment under those and applying the framework that the supremes court gave us and map this it's clear that there are two separate crimes with distinct elements set forth in that aggravated robbery statute so under subsection eight a person commits aggravated robbery when he or she takes property from the persons or person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force while indicating or by his or her actions to the victim that he or she bludgeon in his or her possession when he or she committed the robbery and so there are different means of satisfying subsection eight but all of those the use attempted use or threatened use of force and then there's a separate subsection sub section a dash by which talks about the ability to commit aggravated robbery by taking property from another by injection ingestion and things like that and what's clear in this case is that the defendant was convicted under subsection eight and i could drop the court to page seven of the defendant's criminal history which is attaches exhibit two to the defendant's sentencing memorandum but then makes it clear that the defendant prior conviction for aggravated robbery was defendant was convicted was subsection eight and in fact during the sentencing hearing the government did read into the record a portion of the indictment which set forth the facts because where there are two distinct crimes like a modified categorical approach and the government's right into the record that the defendant committed aggravated robbery by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force while indicating verbal or by his actions to that he was presently armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon and that was on page thirteen of the sentencing hearing transcript of january twentieth two thousand and sixteen if it's really undisputed that the offense that under which the defendant was convicted does require prove that the defendants are threatened the use of force and so based on that the aggravated robbery statute under which the defendant was in fact convicted is in fact never work in the common law generic version of property that has repeatedly been held to constitute a crime of violence under the guidelines i think counsel mentioned that to the government's decision that johnson doesn't apply to the sentencing guidelines such as the career offender guidelines have you abandoned like to briefly first address the evidence of the fourth amendment issue in and in in addressing shrift i i disagree with the government's position as to what that case stands for again in in that in the in those facts what was determined was again at this officer the arresting officer it spent about a week or so surveilling a house that he received an anonymous tip from the selling drugs and he develop according to attenuation in the three pound three prong test and brown versus illinois the court found that the balance of the interest favored not suppressing that evidence and in equities so first of all the fourth amendment is identity is treated no differently than other piece of evidence is what comes out astray there was an evidentiary hearing that was very useful and in the big thing that's different in that case than ours is the majority spent a lot of time talking about the ministerial duty that police officers stamp once they learn of an arrest warrant that they have no choice but then to arrest him bring a person in it's different here there was no arrest on and while there is information that was obtained that my client was illegally in this country the same ministerial duty did not exist in this case this trip so sure if affirms the fact that identity is subject to a fourth amendment analysis it in terms of the other natural question lopez and those also drift never even talked about lopez mendoza garcia garcia or any of those cases in the common thread in all of those cases relied on in the district court in this case is that the residential hearings where other facts were due should the deuced concerning the identity next is the only one other point the being arrested when walking out of the courtroom this particular case it's not going to happen there's an ins hold on mr