basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity and here if we're looking at the vents historically that led up to the seizure and we look at those events through an objective lens there's reasonable suspicion is lacking ultimately what we have here is mr hardy was walking on a sidewalk point three miles away from a residence where nine hundred and eleven caller reported hearing a person in her front yard hardy other than the actual proximity of his where he was in relation to the nine hundred and eleven caller's residence but in determining reasonable suspicion this court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances jestingly indicating that mr hardy was not involved with any criminal activity but wasn't the milk me put it to you this way in the case that you rely on a good bit heard to me the the argument there was this to her just walking walking a dog in a situation where it would be plausible very plausible that there'd be lots of other people in similar circumstances here this could be a completely innocent explanation but the number of people plausibly who would be in the same situation area close in time late at night even past the high crime area is much smaller so a reasonable person would be more suspicious that a facially innocent activity would not be innocent if there's likely to be many other innocent people in the same way i mean that's that's kind of a simple logic isn't it that's correct your honor and i understand your honour's point but it's not a crime to walk at night was not a crime but the policeman doesn't have to know there's a crime he's got to have a reasonable suspicion of it right i mean somebody could have broken down you know i was once walking at three in the morning in  area because i was going to watch a lunar eclipse now that's a pretty crazy thing but it can happen you know policeman stopped me i would have said why are you out here at three in the morning i said i'm going to see the lunar eclipse and he looked up in the sky say eleven call is itself a fact we must consider in assessing the totality of the circumstance and because this nine hundred and eleven call is so devoid of any useful or reliable information that would allow us to determine what crime had been committed and by whom all we really know is that this caller here's somebody outside her home she did not see anything did not provide a description of what she heard there's no absolutely no description of what caused the noise this information was relayed to officer how and he understood this to mean that the resident heard what she thought was someone and it could very well have been an animal be able or a person of any race height gender or body type and even when he went out there he didn't see any crimes or any persons in front of the residence so actively what we have here is when the officer sees mr hardy the  also true of every other person and vehicle an animal that's within point three miles of the not in this far as we can tell around at this time i'm not well you're out of your ass or stated he was not investigating and did not keep track of how many so there could have been in a residential neighborhood you would expect plenty of vehicles in the area which could have accounted for this at one thirty in the morning on a wednesday  she heard a noise she thought was somebody and he can't it clearly candidly i was talking about your vehicle she didn't say she had a vehicle she said she heard something she saw was somebody officer testified that he had no knowledge of whether the person who may or may not have been there might have been driving a vehicle and that might have been what she heard that's page twenty of the suppression transcript ok so i think we need to look also at the facts in the air that would show that mr hardee was not involved in criminal activity because that's relevant into assessing the court's totec the totality of the circumstances in so when officer howell stopped mr hardy he was simply walking on the sidewalk at night officer howell testified himself that as far as he could tell mr hardy was not breaking any laws and he's allowed to walk freely on the sidewalk he was point three miles away from the residence there were no clues as to who or what made the noise the caller heard in that she seemed was somebody in her yard the officer testified and acknowledge that there was  physical descriptors that would have allowed him to conclude that mr hardy was associated with the west wilding nine hundred and eleven call it was just wrong place wrong time there are no bulges in mr heard his waistband or pockets or any other indication that he was concealing weapons or contraband when officer howell approach mr hardee it was initially a consensual encounter so mr hardy simply could have walked away he did not flee or try to avoid the officer is in other cases where this and supreme court have found reasonable suspicion in fact he says he stopped walking he answered questions he cooperated with the officers line of questioning for us or where he was coming from and where he was going he did not try to have said i'm coming from singh's market that would have helped him if the officer asked what's the name of the market might help the officer depending on how fishy his answer was to that you're our officer did not make any attempt to clarify will testify that he asked mr hardee where he was going and mr hardee responds that he went to the store to buy a cigarillos and he was walking back to his mom's house no point out that based on the body camera he in else which prompts mr perry responded he can provide his id number so i mean my point that i'm getting to here is that these are direct responses to direct questions the fact that officer howell had a hunch that mr hardy was lying just does not mean that an objectively reasonable officer would have looked at these questions and answers and determined that mr hardy was engaged in criminal activity a hunch that is lying is not the same as reasonable suspicion to believe he's engaged with any sort of criminal activity and again this is our evasive at this point in the questioning it's a consensual encounter with the police so mr bartlett perfectly at liberty to answer he basically or even to refuse to answer at all  but in determining whether the officer acted reasonably weight is not to be given to the officers in kohut and on particular i suspicion or hunches and my point here is that yes we agree this officer s we agree that this officer subjectively believed mr hardy was up to something but that's not the standard the standard is whether an objective lee reasonable officer looking at these facts and looking at mr hurd's behavior would have reasonable suspicion to believe that mr hardy was engaged in criminal activity and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that mr hardy was engaged in criminal activity that is a substantial distance in a residential neighborhood where there would be dozens of other houses and vehicles within a point three mile radius of this residence and mr hardy was point three miles away between eleven and we have his testimony that he drove around the neighborhood and the only person you saw in the entire neighborhood was mr hardy why is it not reasonable there's no particular an within eleven to fourteen minutes of the call and he is located within a seven minute walk of the residence that made the call and we agree that it's reasonable for the officer to believe that somebody might have been making that noise why why is it your position and i guess it has to be that no reasonable officer could conclude that maybe there was reasonable that there was reasonable suspicion that he was the one who made the noise considering how that's the only evidence in the record and again our positions not the individual or person might have might not have been making this noise it's that there's nothing to indicate that it was mr may have please the court jonathan ross some half of the united states not a lot your honor the district court correctly found that there was reasonable suspicion for the officer to both stop the defendant and two to physically pat  some other explanation for the noise he was there looking for someone outside of the house goes to the house he doesn't see anyone walk doesn't seen it but he doesn't see a soul out there until he comes across mr hardy that is the particularized suspicion that mr hardy is the only particular person walking around in the spring valley neighborhood that evening mr hardy stressed in black the officer knew that black clothing was consistent with the type of attire that someone about commit a property crime my way or the caller's call that someone's outside my house the officer knew that that could indicate that the person outside of the house was casing for robbery therefore the officer reasonably given it was only eleven point counter that ensued between the officer and mr hardy initially was a consensual encounter the officer asked mr hardee what he was doing mr hardy said walking back from the store now to judge boxer question  ago the officer didn't ask more questions at that point sure he could have he could have test let me ask you this is were getting into that found this case kind of interesting because you know only most of the time the magistrate judge the district judge on the same page here the magistrate judge magistrate judge notes that it helps his story that he went to the store to get cigarillos is got one in his hand secondly is the district judge doesn't say this but the magi does he asks him is he our and he says no according to the magistrate judge according to the district judge he says don't shoot me which is much more suspicious but what's the facts what does the powell the facts well you have to consider both because there's no audio for the st i believe minute or so the body cam video so you see the officer and mr hardy engaging but you don't know what's being said and so during the suppression hearing the officer testified that he asked mr hardee what he was doing where he was going where he was coming from and he asked mr hardee during that silent portion of the video whether or not mr hardy was armed as a finding of fact at that point the officer said stand still and i think the parties are in agreement that it was at the moment that officer howell said stand still that the terry stop began and the officer then said i'm going to pat you down and after that mr hardy said don't shoot me now the district court correctly noted that the don't shoot me statements because they came after the officers instruction to stand still could not be considered in the analysis as to whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop however the don't shoot me statements came before the officer actually conducted the pat down therefore the don't shoot me statements the government argued in its brief are properly considered in the analysis as to whether or not there is reasonable suspicion to think that mr hardy was armed and dangerous i thought that argument to the contrary view on that had been abandoned  into the reasonable suspicion to stop analysis also supported the reasonable suspicion to pat down coupled with the fact that the defendant was wearing loose clothing at least clothing can can be used to conceal weapons also the defendant statement don't shoot me as well as the defendant's keeping his hands in close proximity to the pockets and in fact rapidly reaching into the pocket at one point during an encounter and pulling out a phone certainly you know once the defendant put it took his hand out of the pocket and just a phone that mitigated that factor but it still showed that the defendant had pockets was able to conceal things on his person and was in fact able to rapidly reach in their pockets and pull something out so those factors along with  the factors to support stop did support be the st and again to your question judge box moment ago the issue of should the officer of asked more questions to test the story about which market were himself and both is developing reasonable suspicion to think mr hardy committed a crime or is about to and might be armed and dangerous the officer acted reasonably in short circuiting further investigation and instead acting to protect himself and mr hardy by going to stop an attack and there's nothing in in the law that would require more from  thank you your honor i just have a couple quick brief points st the don't shoot me statements i think everyone in the district court agreed occurred after the crucial moment for purposes of the terry stop and therefore they should not factor into the reasonable suspicion analysis and then this might be quibbling but i don't think the magistrate judge found that mr hardy was in in fact being a base of with his responses i believe the magistrate judge found that the officer statements to be invasive ok yeah we actually know what the questions and answers were based on the officer's testimony and so they are just subjective belief that our client was lying just simply should not enter into the whether there is reasonable and particular i suspicioned to be to believe that mr hardy was in fact involved with or about to be involved with some form of criminal activity point crime neighborhood mere presence in a high crime neighborhood is not enough the supreme court specifically told us so and illinois be wardlow and frankly to hold otherwise and to give such great weight to it in this case would mean that anyone who lives in a high crime neighborhood is not afforded the same protections as someone who social economic status would permit them to live in an affluent or otherwise low crime environment but even if it were a low crime environment you know if you get a call at one thirty in the morning on a weeknight that somebody is high on something in their front yard or whatever and they throw it at the last two nights as well and the officer and we've already agreed that it's not unreasonable for the officer to believe that there might actually be a person responsible for that and you're driving around the neighborhood and you look and you look and you look and there's only one percent whether it's a high crime neighborhood or not why isn't it reasonable for the officer to have some kind of reasonable suspicion that that might be the person who created the noise i don't think that amounts to reasonable suspicion has to be i understand but rob why because this particular person there's nothing connecting this person whether they're walking or not the fact that they're the only person in the area if you believe that a person in their debt and we've already established that it's not unreasonable for an officer to do that right incident reasonable if there's only one person that you know you have regardless of whether it's high crime or not to believe that that's the person who might be responsible for making the noise you're under the entirety of the reasonable suspicion analysis to the physical and him or a link between these two events doesn't take into account the totality of the circumstances and all of the all of the other evidence which indicates that mr hardee was not connected to this and was not engaged in any type of criminal thank you thank you or take that case under submission