circus in the larger urban areas the interplay between policing and police intrusions on privacy and it involves two police officers who lied in federal court to help support their and justify their search s vehicle but it instantly what they had was simply the movement two seconds of movement alternately and you know in the in the discussion after that they pull travis out of the car he tells  other cases the officers are looking they have surveillance on a vehicle or they want vehicle stopped because of some particular police not nothing like that here they're just on routine patrol they don't don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy they don't know and so noted and i certainly argue that what they have to justify the search of the car again is largely the pat frisk and it's just very use you said there of a little bit of oddity and you know whether he's higher not but there's also a lot of communication and a lot of recognition of officer context show me your hands he does take your left hand open the door he does a turn around he does face the put your hands behind your back all of these things he's recognizing communicating he does say something or trying to kill me man if you watch the video you heard at least some pressured speech also says i just want to call my dad can i call my dad to the extent it gets excited if he says the f word two times on the way to the car and he wants to smoke a cigarette in the car i think the officer somewhat overstated his getting excited in the car but that happens well after they started to search proconsul let me ask you if the place that planned and let's say that we're saying  pat frisk is ok because they see him reaching for something in the car so there's a possibility that there is a gun in the car terry stop they're going to let him go back to the car in an arnold we have that if there's a possibility of returning to the c there that he was trying to reach that decision to get back into the car is going to pull up the gun and shoot that well to just for the long search the police have to have a reasonable belief that he's the travis the car at that time is dangerous at that point the police do have a real interest now if there's something else going on that would have caused them to retain him in custody and do an inventory search of the car then i think you might have an inevitable discovery issue but that at least you wouldn't have you know the search of the car for officer safety if they're going to keep the car zero and not let him get back in the car then there's no more justification for searching the car well in this case  mean you know i guess i have to presume that he would be really loud return to the car but there's a couple things that happen before the search you know after they get him out the immediately decide they're going to see a pap frisk and handcuff them and then basically talk left back of the vehicle and so they they're they have an opportunity to to either enhanced or dispel some of their fears and in this case what they learned was simply that he was on probation he gave permission about that and he's being supervised i mean that cuts both ways under walton from this court it can be considered but he can't be of the only factor there so essentially the police have a little bit of weirdness you just made the court i am adam to task on behalf of the united states the court should have confidence in the district court's ruling that there was recently suspicion to support both the terri and the protective search the protective search is supported by several main facts in the record long and can't think the supreme court has try to move away from the position that just because somebody was once upon a time in a car if they're far away from that car in the back seat of the squad car handcuffed at this point he's not going to reach into that car and do anything to the officer your honor the united states refer to the arnold case where the where the appellant was also in the car at the time of the protective search and the facts on the record make this search re the movements towards the front of the car and then towards the back to the repeated refusals to answer whether or not there was a gun in the car which is an integral fact in this case because these are two officers why do people have an obligation to answer all of these questions that seems strange position for the government to take we honor if there wasn't a gun in the car it would seem unusual that the appellant wouldn't immediately answer there wasn't a gun that's not serious i mean with the police community relations at the low  they heart right now i can imagine all sorts of people not wanting to tell police anything you're out of the united states with respect least made it was reasonable for the officers to be concerned for their safety when a person in a car during a traffic stop which thi not there was a come in the car the agitated behavior is there ever a search of a car that would not be justified in your view i think the government takes a position that this isn't one hundred percent overlap if you make a traffic stop you can search the car significantly more than a will there's a movement towards the front floorboard of the car and then and mediately afterwards a very quick movement towards the back seat of the car two to two officers at night in an urban area this is concern it's not your briefcase inconsistent about this if it didn't you know they're fine united states we contend the holding in arnold the still good law and the analysis and arnold is still good law after again and there's the analysis can is based on the of the car at the time here it that the facts right chemical locked in the squad car locked in the squad car i don't see in this record where there's been any development on the part of the government that if a car was going to go back to his car that's just sort of an assumption we don't know and get may make that fact pertinent here as it actually guy like the car oh apparently there are some reasons where maybe was going to go anywhere near that car ever you're under the only crime that there was probable cause for at the moment of the productive search was the passing through the red light which is not your idea he's driving what about driving a car while impaired you're out of the united states guy backed into a car you're out of the record and the impairment was not fully developed at the hearing on the other hand if if the court is going to stress that the driver was intoxicated then there's arguably it probable cause to search the car based on that intoxication and the united states is not going as it did not and is not arguing that as it did not in its brief it's distressing all the facts that are available to support the reasonable this of this protective search in order buttress the officer safety about night but the officer safety rationale is precisely what garrett rejects you know the government had argued over and over again before dan that once you had  even if he wasn't within reaching distance of the car at the time to search you could do the vehicle certain according to court says no you know that goes too far which is where it brings into play the question that we're now exploring whether  the arnold and imagining of somebody then walking being released and walking back to the car certainly an easy officer safety argument to make for that that if the person was exactly like the person you can't and wasn't going to be walking back to the car then we have a different situation and if this guy is thrashing around and screaming obscenities inside the police car and he's behaving in a way that they think is impaired ripple is right that it may not have had any intention of letting him get back in that car and drive off he's already just blown through a red light you know which seems like a strange behavior for somebody and you're out of the united fruit for signs of that intoxication and potential drugs against the united states wants to stress the the out very unusual movements towards the front of the car and then towards the back of the car after the car was stopped by their refusal to answer whether or not there was a gun in the car which is very concerning to the officers the fact that the defendant was agitated and then we also have the false imprisonment conviction of violent felonies that the officers became aware the defendant had previously been first there was an ankle monitor and the off right at the ankle monitor so again the thought that they're going to just like an arnold have him stale right back into his car seems unlikely to me they're going to let a guy w you know with an ankle monitoring device just to get back in his car and go off where you're under the united states with respect we submit this is in the record but a probation probably would've been on the press not i mean a brief period of custody to get all of these things sorted out doesn't seem at all unusual to me you're going to ask the question has it ever been you know the defendant conceded during his argument that this was a terrorist attack and i didn't see anywhere and the defendant's brief that he was challenging that this was a three step which means the presumption that there's no custodial arrest and he would be allowed to go back to the car has this ever been litigated i didn't see anything litigated below i think about them so much harder question if we're trying to figure out if it's a good storyteller rest or a terry stop has this ever been litigated this question of whether he was going to be allowed to go back to the car as the universe we live in where the terri stop where you are actually handcuffed is not regarded as an arrest it's a detention so it's the same thing that you're not free to be if he wasn't free to leave from the back of a squad car yes yes your honor and again the united states i don't know whether you're calling it a terry stop or a banana he wasn't free to leave yes your honor and again the reason for the protective search is all of these actions totality of all those actions combined in this very fast moving situation a violent felon to stop her running through a red light he refuses to indicate whether or not there's a weapon in the car all the suspects the united states respectfully submit supports the reasonableness of the officers actions in we didn't have on a gun he's you know somewhat overpowered at this time eventually don't say i don't have anything he does say that the government doesn't like to point that out but he does say that he communicates a lot of other honest information and i will tell you in response to this discussion about gansey and whether he was under arrest and whether whether he would have ever gotten back to the car it would have been brought up more in that in the evidence during i was a part of that i will tell you that the obvious  because i i didn't i did not see this is a custodial stop because i knew from my view of the of the city i did not see it as an arrest because i knew from the my view of the