an area where you could break ins are in demick and there were several visible firearms strewn about the interior of that mustering either of these concerns standing alone would have been sufficient to justify the anybody like trujillo who just happened to turn off into the area so it's certainly publicly accessible and if it wasn't own if it wasn't publicly owned it certainly wasn't clear who it was owned by and that's not a fact that would have been knowable to the deputy at th does not require that the vehicle to be impounded be on public property if i may take a moment to to frame the issues in dispute as i  deputy couldn't impound the car because they were his real concerns that they were instead just a cover for the desire to uncover evidence of criminal activity and his problem is that neither this record nor the case look at the point the deputy scraw took an action that in friends died and mr trujillo's th amendment rights were that otherwise would have done so if it weren't justified here which is when he began when he entered that car to begin research the time of which he made his decision to impound the vehicle although his decision and the reasons for are relevant at the time that he made that decision he hadn't taken any steps that that would implicate the th amendment so the correct point to evaluate his motivations for when he began to do that and at that point he certainly knew he had always known about the cars problem being where it was in the roadway that existed from the beginning and it's an independently sufficient by the time he actually began the and then tori he also knew about the firearms inside of it and at that point he could not have simply ignored the presence of the firearms even if some magical miraculous solution to the car's position had had at that point materialized and his testimony in fact made very clear that even if he could have moved the car which he didn't think that would be sufficient solution but even if he could have moved the car he made it clear that he could not have left the picture that's on page three of the government's opening brief it's defendant exhibit b now you really have to look at the one that's in color and kind of zoom in you know in my black and white picture here it's not as obvious but when you do we are we're on page three ok so the star on the very far left that's the deputy's car or at least one of the cars the median is sort of that that it is in the upper right hand corner of the picture  star he would have encountered the median and that is what you can see in the picture so he's right there or he's almost about to be in that divided part of the entrance way but he's not quite there  they're still back a little bit further this is not impassable right and i knew i'd know it was impassable in the district court and he found that it was she made a factual finding that he was blocking the entrance to the gated community what this deal was whether if the car had been moved all the way over to the median would it still be blocking the entrance way into the community the deputy i thought that it could but the defense sort of picture that showed two cars in there side by to be entirely blocking traffic it just needs to be an impediment to traffic to the flow of traffic or merely inconvenience to the community opperman itself involved a car that was parked in a legal parking spot on the streets for a one million south dakota at the wrong time of night so that corner in that case wasn't impeding traffic it was just not supposed to be parked there in the way that true here is mustang is not supposed to be parked in the middle of the entrance way to the gated community and so auburn is not sort of by very high standards for determining what an impediment to traffic nuisance hazard is and the district court here erred by requiring essentially to be a cart is walking a full lane of traffic in the middle of a busy interstate that's not the opperman standard that was less intrusive  secured the weapons in the trunk for instance of that car st that's not an entire solution to the problem of vandalism and theft in dumb brow ski in fact the supreme court dealt with a case where a car  had what they suspected what the officer suspected was a weapon in a locked trunk so putting it for instance in a locked trunk is not going to take care of the problem the deputies also don't even know how many guns are in that car they can see three of them but they don't know if there are more they don't know what's inside of those containers and in this court's case and johnson it held at the president's one gun made it clearly permissible to look for more when there was a concern about endless and firearms in that location so here there is really nothing that they could do on scene to secure those firearms that would have been satisfactory also just securing the firearms doesn't take care of the problem of the car special in the roadway and even if they had moved it over to the curb that is closer to the curb that doesn't entirely alleviate the problem either there's not supposed to be a dark car in the middle of the night parked in the active entrance way to the gated community even if you move it there it's still it's still an impediment to traffic it's still a nuisance this court has often up help the removal of vehicles from the roadways without any discussion of whether they pose an obstacle to traffic that go in by on the road the cases i was a generally stand for the proposition that we don't just require an officer to leave abandoned vehicles littered about the roads even if time to factual questions you described exhibit c is showing the cars side by side they don't look side by side to me looks like the one on the right is or significantly that act from the other  in a way that makes it look like there's a lot of room here but the district court defined as a factual finding that two cars could fit and we don't just view that on appeal but the district court did not find that that disagreement with the deputy was any kind of didn't say that it wasn't innocent there was there an innocent explanation for his statement that she disagreed with she merely found that if he had moved at another car could have hit by again but that doesn't that's not dispositive under opperman there's not supposed to be a car parked in any part of that any part of that entryway and any where it is it can be a hazard to a motorist who is not expecting a dark car in in that location under the underpass under the that policy that mandates towing in every case of a driver rest would mandate to too many cases of towing but this isn't what we have here there was an exception here but it doesn't really matter even under you had a question at what point did the officer know that defendant did not have proof of registration of his vehicle was that before the inventory impound he did have him come back to the vehicle but i don't believe that the record reflects where a discussion at what point in discussion about registration took place or what what he looked into the registration of the car and i'm very curious about exhibit c it just looks like a distorted photograph if there's really room between the two vehicles to get by without you know if there's a few inches that's obstruction you're it's if you're driving a car maybe an s u v i suspect some people in the stated community owned s u v s you're going to be worried about hitting somebody on your right so if it's not possible that they couldn't even fit you couldn't put them next to each other but you could get a picture like this taken at an angle i'm rather disturbed about that that seems like i'm surprised that the judge even considered th picture given that if what you're saying is true it would been so easy to take a picture that would have shown that can you explain this well certainly  but i just thought it was very it actually shows more than that it shows that if they really could sit next to each other the photographer would have taken a picture showing that and the failure changed have a picture that would prove the point to me totally undermines his finding that i'm  going to if he's worried about firearms and he sees them when they've been if you're saying that he should have done something with those foreign within the officer often also have a duty to look in the backpack to see if they're far as they are after all in katie they they just thought this officer who had been stopped for d v i must have had an official weapon with him so they searched the trunk they didn't have any specific information of the truck here you have a backpack you've got three other weapons wouldn't they have necessarily had a duty to look in the backpack and if they had we'd be right properly follow sanders and determine are there alternatives to impoundment and then have to consider what should i do with these firearms i think that there are are alternatives and those are primarily made you know so they're not or passers by and then the law in mexico is you can have a firearm in your car and they can be visible at the issuing the issue is whether there's a danger given the threat of someone breaking into the car and me ask about the obstruction of traffic is she it would have been a post fit would it not for large for an s u v to get by is far the way it was parked originally that was not necessary to decide sanders was it sander says some strange language it talks about imminent danger and it doesn't cite any authority and i'm not aware of any talking about imminent  and that was dictum because it was hardly necessary to resolve that case but if you if we look at the opperman there you had a cart when it was towed it was in a lawful parking place it was during the day when you could park there it just been parked there too long and that was enough to justify removal here you have a vehicle that by any reasonable size interpretation would have struck traffic someone coming in it's four am an hour and a half later driving a large vehicle looking down to get the car to get through the gate and you run into this car you don't see you're not expecting you're not looking for a car there it seems to me that the obstruction i don't see how you get around the obstruction without some sort of pretext finding the car on the on the side of the highway in wyoming in the court found problems with the just the case of the officers saying they needed to impound the vehicle because they didn't immediately move it out of about his decision to impound the vehicle was saying gives you license to search all these interiors within the vehicle was not before the court when she made that fine and she may find even on the nd motion on the you stand the the judge's ruling she was saying as long as another park a guy could get by defended vehicle then it wasn't obstructing the roadway and there was no property and that word is in for size and it says it nowhere mentions empowerment from private lots with independently sufficient reason it was not justified by a reasonable non pretextual community caretaking rationale it was legally parked on private property and there is no evidence in the record that the police consulted the owners of the parking lot let me ask you this assume you're wrong and that sanders apply to private property and in this case the judge said she didn't know whether it was public or you mean you don't have the burden for that your motion to suppress i certainly think that that there is a burden of production for the defendant when they file a motion to suppress i think the law's clear that the ultimate burden to