the morning council of our next case united states versus here committed legal error the defendant ignored police commands to stop paused briefly to curse at the officers and shield his side from view and then flood those four seconds applause does not equal submission in any realistic sense to the officer shell of the party that that will require the district court came to the conclusion that a reasonable person would not have been out of the impression they were free to go you quibble with that conclusion i know you are that's only the st prong of the analysis so that's the show but you do agree with that conclusion we did we i think conceded that allowed that by racing out of the car and saying it's not until he got to the door that he turns around i'll clean this up for all our listeners at home he said i ain't doing i asked leave me the f alone he turned his side away from the flashlight and then he rapped and i you know we think it's thirty four maybe five seconds at most and under this court's precedents in this court really has been a leader in this area that's not sufficient the white ways of this even more meaningful compliance than we had in in brown in there we said it was not did according to the district court findings which it sounds like you're not disputing he stopped he turned around and he attempted to engage in conversation with the detective he then turned to the side again not fleeing but turning even speaking to conceal it when one side wasn't that far more compliance with the instructions and he wasn't around when brown the court i think pointed out that the defendant complied with orders not to move he follow their directions he then faced the car you then started to put his hands on the vehicle this this to me seems a lot closer to what happened in valentine where we have a defendant who is moving you then stops in valentine he then gives his name and then he flees your i mean the idea that this was an attempted conversation i mean he threatens essentially the officers he was moving basically in that entire four nd period i mean there's no period where he's actually standing still be with his hands up or giving his name he's cursing at them he's shifting he's moving and then he's off ok but mr roboto there's more going on he was going to go into his building his whole he couldn't let into his whole get it without or that he doesn't he stopped as they're running towards he lets them get closer to him so that different and significant none of the other cases involved you know being on the edge your whole being waist car or something like that we really are i suppose that's true there's no real evidence of why he didn't go into that building and we also i mean there was no evidence it was his home at the time but again we have to look at the totality of circumstances here he has ignored the officers for several seconds he turns around for a period again of maybe four seconds at most at which point he curses at them is not the thoughtful operative discussion i mean just martini himself so there was a confrontation at the door he shifts his side away which the officers also find complete completely suspicious and then he's off in an attempt to get away that i don't know there's any case similar to that where this court or any other court has found that that's enough to be a realistic submission to authority i mean the word submit means to you know to yield to one's governance or authority if anyone else submitted to someone like that i mean that's how it would ever think jay you've submitted to my authority by cursing me out turning away from me and then running away all in a matter of four  elected not to enter the building that he stopped he turned around and he attempted to converse with the detectives well you're not i mean i think that that's a characterization that's i mean not so i mean again i'm not taking i think  it's a characterization more than actually finding we know what he said that this record credited what he said to the officers was i am doing asked leave me t f alone i don't know that's that the idea that that's a attempted conversation as a factual finding so much as a characterization of what happened i mean he credited the officers if that's what he said what about the judge closes his opinion by saying a reasonable officer standing in the shoes of the detect do with the st issue here which is did he submit at the door there i don't think there's any real factual dispute there again perhaps you know whether he reached the door didn't reach the door again from the video there's no evidence at all whether he reached the door not so i mean analysis so i don't know that's his intent matters at all in this and nd there's no evidence at all where that could even come from i mean just much he tells us what the defendant said and there's nothing contrary to that i mean he doesn't say that sears attempted to say something far more constructive conversation than this and the court has said that's not enough especially in a situation where again it's a very short period of time and then flight no valentine he gets his name and this is some night circa cases where there's actual discussion back and forth sign right on point and smith and some of the other cases i pointed to some non presidential opinions of this court where again is similar stopping stopping alone is not going to be good enough i'm going to distinguish this case from the others just restricted i know you are on the hester opinion and i actually argued that case that's a case where the defendant was sitting in a car for an extended period of time before the officers actually the door they had a conversation with the driver and what you said in that opinion was by that at the time he fled he had long since admitted no one can possibly say that about the defendant here it's only four seconds total there's no period at which he had long since admitted like in history or some of the other cases what is a long enough for submission no you the circumstances so i think it's going to better case by case maybe if here again i'm not going to weigh and i know exactly how i would come out here but what if here he had his hands up the whole time and he said well my name is you know i'm serious i'm sorry i'm stopping maybe that it's a closer call maybe if we change the facts a little bit and he's at the door of the entire time and the officers get out of the car runs towards him and he's standing there the whole time and he puts his hands up although maybe it's shield their side and run away in a matter of four seconds what's your standard of review here and what do you make of r m statement clark we must draw a reasonable inferences in th favor well the senator of an interest in the i mean there's no difference whatsoever to the district court finding and that the court made that very clear and low for the moment of the seizure and whether there's reasonable suspicion are reviewed  dispute especially on this point as to what the facts are what about what about what the judge concluded with and he kind of pinned his she's now says reasonable suspicion on and his conclusion that he didn't believe the police officers well this if we can jump to the  point which is if if this court if this court were to find that he submitted at the door then you would get to the reasonable suspicion at the door if the court agrees with the government that there was no submission at the door then i think everyone agrees that once he flees i reasonable suspicion to stop him at that point but if we go back to the door i think just martini's opinions a little confusing here the sentence three sections to the opinion the st section talks about the stop the this whether he s the nd section he doesn't hire analysis where he where he accepts the offices all the officers testimony and even there he says nope not good enough we disagree with that point the rd part of the opinion is that one page where to me is very unclear he says the i think he's he seems to be he's talking only about the waistband movement he talks about the movement and the subtlety of the movement and says that it would be an unreliable observation he never says i don't believe the opposite the truth he hasn't said i don't think the officer saw something and in fact i think that would be hard to reconcile with what the judge says on that page of the opinion  say that the detectives could not have made the proportion observations saying that there's no way they could have seen what they testified to saw well your honor st of all he doesn't come out and say i think the officer lied up on the stand and saw something that's number one and number two he also says the video is inconclusive as to whether he even made the movement so it's a little strange for him to say you know i can't tell on the video whether he made the move or not but there's no way the officer could possibly could help but know to no or well your honor i think i would be very hard to say they were and recently mistaken here were number one judge martini never found that the video didn't show the movement so that's a little strange and number two you can actually see on the video that he does make a movement where he pulls out a cigarette so he's making movements with his arms the officers were mistaken about what he was doing he grabbed a cigarette instead of touching his waist or reaching for a gun that doesn't i think that still qualifies in the reasonable suspicion and house if it produces a given to the officers didn't  said the video shows almost everything but delaval testified to remember the incident report came before the video the video shows the defendant turn around the video shows him look back over his shoulder it shows time than this video would show which wouldn't be hard because the video is very clear and i think that this is of the opinion as a little hard to figure out what he's talking about now i would say your honor that even without that movement there spot on and correct mr serious a minister police authority when the police got out of the car and yelled at him police stop and he did the government has been talking about the case as though we don't have a video surveillance footage here and certainly the video surveillance footage is not as clear as it could be but what happened at the hearing was that does tend to bell about testified while the video was the play and so the court sort of dance reviewed them in tandem and so we encouraged the court do the same here to go back and review the video and the video shows that went in monsignors heard the heard the police there it's unclear initially whether he heard them or he thought they were talking to him because the amount testifies that there were people milling court yet at the time so it's certainly possible that he may have thought they were speaking to some of them but certainly when it became clear the police were yelling police stopped him he stopped as just martini found he did make a move to get into his building curse at the police of course we're not disputing that but what is clear is that when he stopped when he did what he was asked to do which was stop now the government talks about valentine and how what happened here is even less than what happened in valentine but i draw it the points tensions the facts of valentine and mammon time he was to simply asked to raise his hands and he didn't do that what what he did instead was to answer some questions that were not compliant with the specific order given and i think the points the sort of as a as a theme through the courts opinions like in brown and smith and waterman where the defendants have done something opposite to what they were a light on him an attempt to search the area in his waistband he held out his hand sort of showing that there was nothing his hands while he cursed that he for and all that happened before he later on fled now the fact that he fled later team is that does not vitiate his initial compliance with the show authority which was a police stop which he did the government seems to say that mr it should have done more that he should have been he's in conversation with them but that's not what happened here the meaningful than the the valentine or this myth situation i think what makes this compliance more meaningful is what we can see on the video and i'm not sure if they have that in valentine or in smith or and brown but in this case we have a tangible evidence of the video where the court can see for itself what is actually happening and that's what a judge might see me did he looked at the video and saw what was happening anywhere he didn't just look at the time in fact  and so we have a little bit more sort of a video that a picture shows a one thousand words the view in here certainly gives the court more of a feel for the nature of the circumstance and show that it was more than momentary compliance there was something else going on here and the court has to look at all those factors together in making the sherman nation whether or not c s the minutes of the authority of the portsea and we consent and our position is that if you look at the video and you consider that with  with them and he say that what we can see in the video shows that submission but we have cases like wonderment where where there is been evasive action in response to police instructions we've said that's not sufficient and here are even on the video what why don't we just see a series of the base of steps is moving away from them he is reaching to the door when he turns around he's  he's christening at them keeping him in a distance he then turns up to the side ends and then flees with where is there actually a momentary pause in the action in any of that the momentary pause in the action  seers coming towards the building he gets the building the video shows that he doesn't in their incident report the police wrote that he opened the door but was unable to get in and which is when he stopped but the video shows something different the video shows that he gets the door he stops turns to face the officers and then says i'm not doing anything leave me alone and that your honor the air is the stop that he was perhaps maybe in a corner it doesn't really matter we're looking at the nature of interaction here in the nation the interaction is certainly more than the momentary compliance of the men sort of has been talking about he does more than that here he actually stops and going back to your question about what a man and what him and i think what another thing that's really important and th amendment analysis is by its nature fact intensive and we have to look at the facts of all the different pieces and then one of them  also being something that can show a submission to compliance and here we have more than half of acquiescence we actually have the defendant stopping turning and talking to the police officers that shows that he did more than would want it certainly doesn't mean that he didn't comply and looking at the nature of the circumstances shows that he didn't comply and was that see if i may try it if we if we accept nash and relooking it was a mistake the officers perception of a waistband adjustment that in their training experience was consistent with someone carrying a firearm why doesn't that to bust over the edge when it comes  shoes if i believe the name of the case is what the name of the keys are woller and the correct when he talks about furtive movements and trying to move the ways bad while the person is in front of the police officers or there's more than  a nd or one a nd or two because there he was driving east in the westbound lane he naturally had to keep i on the road there was a big white van and if the court watches the view of the court will see that it was a white sat and officer and know about when the about sixty and certainly would have believed that being having some sort of waste and movement at a high crime area in the middle of the night in a neighborhood that misses years lives and the officers he may have been he may have believed that he saw that but that's because the test it's out of the circumstances and whether a reasonable officer given all the factors and we're not just looking at the furtive movement in isolation we sort of have  to look at them so they gather and the court has never said one movement that weighs more than the other the point is never separate of movement alone weighs more than a high crime area should have to look at all of them to get it and looking at all of them together judge martini correctly determine he's shown the video multiple times and can say you look here look here look here he claims that his eyesight from twenty five year way was certainly better than the video but the video doesn't support his assertion that there was a quick subtle credibility finding here and so if we take the officer's testimony as a given do you agree that with the officers account including what he says but and i think we believe that that legal finding is correct but don't know about going to believe that he saw what he saw could have been his belief could have been mistaken but either way the points lining is that even if an officer even if tell about what he said he saw a reasonable officer in his position given all his training and experience would not i believe that criminal activity is afoot and so yes you can accept that dell about believe that he saw that but his conclusion from that is incorrect and that's what the court did here yes he believes that he saw that but that did not give him looking at the totality of the circumstances and all the factors involved including the obstruct view including that it was late at night all of that a look at all of that together since he did not have the reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot and the there is nothing and of course the government disagrees with teens legal conclusions that that he had no reason suspicion but there's nothing clearly erroneous about joe's mighty needs legal conclusions and fashion determinations and that's a high burden for the government let me start at the at the end there that the the question of whether there was reasonable suspicion is a legal question so does martini's finding has given no difference whatsoever on that question and here as i was about to say late at night this was at eleven forty four pm whether there was nervously they said behavior here the defendant turned around seeing the officers looked over his shoulder several times picked up the pace refused to listen to the officers commands and whether the defendant behave in a way in the officer's experience is indicative of crime here waistband movement with the office just that is something that people often do when they're holding a gun in their waistband so all four of those factors are satisfied so yes i think that  reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances we don't have to defer to judge martinez conclusion on that point i'd like to go back to the st point really fast to buy my adversary says well he stopped well sure i mean with this court find that someone who's walking away from the officers stops for a nd turns around and says you know f you and then keeps walking but that's good enough because he stopped i mean you have to stop in a meaningful sense as the court unbalancing said it has to be submission in a realistic sense of that word a defendant who stops for four seconds curses at the officers and then runs does not stop in any meaningful sense of the word and again the word stuff doesn't have some sort of significance ballantine stopped so did many of the other defendants we talked about in our brief and then finally nature of the interaction i mean you can watch the video and you marry that with what judge martini said that he cept that that the defendant said which is i doing as the the nature of the interaction is not helpful to the defendant at all it's not cooperative it's not you know working with the officers it's confrontational there's nothing about this nature of the interaction that makes these four seconds somehow they're going for a pattern he's showing a flashlight the defendant sort of turns away and then runs but again if the defendant had stood that and pressed to high heaven for a couple of minutes and then they get the you know they finally did the pat down then obviously there would be a seizure if the defendant had stood there for several minutes and then ran away maybe then there would be a seizure this was for a nd supine which was completely taken up by pursing turning away and i think just cause as you said there's no period in time here where he's actually just standing there he's turning he's shifting his hands he's yelling he's moving his side and i pull this off it probably took me a lot more time to say that than it actually took to happen so again your honor we don't think that he