suppress the trial court decided several issues correctly it decided that police officers had already stopped the defendant's vehicle it decided that the officers involved only ordered the defendant out of these fearful and decided that the officers properly secured the defendant in handcuffs for their safety and we agreed with all of those points but the trial court when astray when suppressed the evidence begun based on the officers description of their actions a to correct errors that were made and branching out from that point i would also note that the exclusionary rule was an issue below the defense was asking the court to apply the exclusionary rule on the entire application of the identified himself or herself as part of the nine hundred and eleven call boy i think i think the evidence that came in at the suppression hearing was that the nine hundred and eleven call or did later identify themselves i'm certainly you know you know our we're looking at the officers point of view when they made the arrest and i don't think that they knew the caller's name at the point that they made the arrest but what facts in addition you know supported the finding that this nine hundred and eleven caller may have been alive not just that but the collar provided the sequence of the vehicles now when you think of all the different types of cars all the different models makes colors out there there are rd hundreds and thousands of different permutations of astronomical or even goes here this is something we don't usually see all of the vital information and continue to provide information as to where he was going where the defendant's vehicles going the basis of knowledge was provided and gave the hour and he finds these exact revia post in the exact sequence that he caller specified but he doesn't call the vehicles over there he doesn't say ok what i found my car this must you know this must be we're looking for know he he stops he follows them he continues to make observations he continues to receive details from discussion about where these cars are he observes that the vehicles are making turns in tandem abruptly very quickly the camry even blows a stop sign in order to keep observation is not a search because an individual does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in objects that he leaves open in plain view for anybody to see so i would submit that if it's not a search car i think it could be clear i think it could be classified is that it is a little bit more tenuous because we do have evidence that the defendant was placed in the back seat of the car at that point however as we said we have a report of a gun we don't know where they go in this at this point and in addition there is a toyota camry do you know still as far as the officers on the scene there were you know we were still at large so i could tell there there was reason was there reason believe was responsible without doing any sort of follow up investigation for example i think you believe speaking with the alleged victim and corroborating the further one corroborating that the details of the nine eleven call i think he said is an example that they could have when spoken to the victim and could just confirm that the victim wasn't making it up or you know wasn't telling telling a lie but i would submit that you had damn mentioned earlier that the officers saw the gun in plain view before they entered the vehicle to actually take it or look for us the records point stand do you still at that point there is a reasonable threat to officer safety that this other guy could show up maybe maybe grab a gun that the off where the officers don't know where it's located from the vehicle if these two people are truly acting in tandem now that there were quite  viewing it through the officers i was at the time when this occurred that this was a highly volatile situation involving a man with a gun and was not complying with their orders a man i think based on the situation for the officers certainly their actions in plain view on the rear passenger or part of the vehicle certainly i understand counsel saying well it doesn't appear in the report anywhere but as just isn't clear and said that may not corroborate the officers testimony but it certainly doesn't contradict the officers testimony so the only testimony that we have in the record is that this was a plain view observation and i think that goes toward the weaver argument to this was part of the record the officer did testify that observed the gun in plain view so while the trial attorney did not argue that below the trial court had the test someone before it was part of the record had the opportunity to address that so it would certainly that there would be events that are occurring under which he to clear does not have an opportunity to fabricate and that's what we have here we have it we have it and then one cop he's giving the simultaneous contemporaneous details with what's happening and based on you when you make the there's there's the defendant i have in i think my response to that just is enough would be just with the reasonable doubt standard where there is clear case law that says that he you don't have to prove out all theories consistent i think it's there and finally that it takes me into it and i would be remiss if i didn't talk about draper because as i said in my review i think it's a strong case admittedly it's an old case but it doesn't make it any less compelling or persuasive in that case we it's a drug case and the officers receive info from a confidential informant he's the they receive a location they receive a date they receive a general description ok this guy's go to be wearing this type of clothing he's going to have a t and zipper bed and the police found a man matching that description and arrested him they didn't go up to that man and say are you carrying heroin they didn't double check with the confidential informant once they found the guy and say  are you sure this is the guy who you said there with no they arrested him right away and the united states supreme court held that that was ok that although the officers did not personally see the heroin before the arrest they confirmed every detail from the confidential known one color here but as i provided in my brief certainly one factor can compensate for another under gates so i don't think it's a meaningful distinction i think it is on point with our case when the officers