got out the officer approached him with his hand on his firearm and asked him to get back into the car a reasonable person in that position on a late night would not feel free to say no your honor no officer i'd rather stay right here this case it's not a consent analysis whether the defendant would feel the reasonable person would feel free to quote to decline the officer's question or demand what not he goes back to his car and the question is does he do it voluntarily of question we just ask the question if he were to decline that request he would be entitled to do so and that would not give rise to reasonable suspicion or the scenario with this would be a story or saying the opposition titled order  officer pulled up and simply shined the light on the defendant's vehicle and it was at that point that the defendant rapidly approached nervously according to the testimony in the record the officer and the officers reaction to that for his own safety a parked vehicle that is not being operated and simply engages in an encounter with an individual it's no different from a desperate stop and the officers and how to approach that vehicle and ask questions including for id and other it's a little different i guess going on as the fourth in the record it's an paragraph three of the officers declaration the officer testified that the defendant exited the vehicle approached him rapidly and nervously and it was at that point that the officer for safety reasons very smart criminal but if you were to walk away and simply terminate the encounter at that point there would be no seizure and no reason for the seizure on the officer's part the officer would then be free to investigate of course the vehicle itself but there would be no seizure and the person  vehicle that would constitute a seizure of the person and would require some sort of reasonable suspicion for that but that's not what happened whereas if you walking towards i mean there is no safety concerns for the walking away or the from the officer if he's walking it has to be something as real special something that you already have and you have a so you have a basis for being close to them you have to you have authority to pass them down to make sure they don't have a weapon that they can hurt you  is not implicate the fourth and then it concerns and in this case it would follow similarly if you can order the defendant out of the vehicle for your own safety concerns in order to control the situations having no for them and then you can do so for your own safety concerns was no suspicion in that case the court held that it was a voluntary encounter when the d e s blocked the defendant's car and ordered him out of the vehicle in order to conduct the questioning that they did the defendant complied  time and that is a case where here as here the phrasing of the questions it's clear it's in the record that the officer was acting in a monotone manner and asking questions politely of the defendant and the defendant could feel free as he did so later upon the defendant asking for to make a phone call the office said no just hang tight wait a minute and you can ask because many phone calls as you like the phone ring immediately thereafter and in this case the officer did not to answer that call and then asked him to hang up and call the person back when he had a question that you know who else remember that would be a command that would that would be a command in this case but at that point there were many things that were known to the officer including the question why answers on the pile on the part of the defendant including the fact that he had noticed that the pupils were or he had noticed that identity of the individual yes in the casey tried to ascertain the identity but that occurred after the initial stop which is when he was ordered back into the car and second the government apparently contends that at that moment when my client was either asteroid or after the car was an officer his hand on his gun that there was reasonable suspicion i would direct the court to us versus court current and brown v texas which make it clear that being in the area in