and unless this on this court has any questions about the remaining arguments i stand on my briefs this case involves an unreliable tip that was uncorroborated in a search that went outside the scope of what's permitted under  facts are uncontested dion was walking out of an apartment building talking with his friend to the side when three chicago police officers stopped their car got out of the car ordered deon and listen to get out  one of them had been involved in the south being so one officer search sitting on while the other officers searched to listen they didn't find anything but still believing about one of them had the knife that had been granted deion's motion to suppress first the state did not establish reasonable suspicion to justify stopping and searching gian where there is no information about the caller corroboration of illegal activity second even if the initial stop was valid the second search went beyond what was necessary to determine whether d m was armed officers may act on information provided by a third party but only if the information is reliable and allows an officer to reasonably infer that a person was involved in criminal activity and here there's no information at all about whether that it was reliable it's precisely like the united states supreme court's decision and florida vs j l we we have a call we don't know anything at all about the call and so there it's an anonymous tip  and secondly that officers didn't corroborate there was any illegal activity all they corroborated is the innocent fact that there was a black woman in an orange stack at that's not a legal there were no signs that anyone had been search if there is a basis for them to stop and search the female wouldn't there be you know transferrable right for them to search who's with her in case there is a weapon  no your honor there would not be a particularly under the circumstances of this case or dion aided look like anyone they were searching for and b was not doing anything suspicious there's if he was but if he was with the person that they were searching for a black woman in the orange  jacket in that area for public safety purposes when the police be justified in searching him as well i don't think so your honor they were walking out of an apartment building their record doesn't indicate the size of the apartment building but i from just common sense you know many people live in apartment buildings yes i'm sorry yes your honor so there could be you know at least six different people living as apartment building and their neighbors they could conceivably be talking to you doesn't mean that he's i think a lot of people walk walking out of that apartment building at that moment in time working in orange jacket i think the fact that she was wearing an orange jacket can't be transferred to deon with they walking close together they were talking would it be reasonable for the police to believe that she had transferred the weapon to him a knife or involved to hide it to keep it from the police so he could destroy it or get rid of it under the circumstances of this case i don't think so they were talking to each other there's no indication  that there was any sort of upset there's no blood they were just talking i mean at least based on the record that we have in this case there's no indication that there was any reason to suspect deon he didn't i mean the police or the officer testified he didn't look like anyone they were looking for he's sixteen years old he didn't look like he could be someone's husband he wasn't identified on the tip i mean we have a doctor and there's no guilt by association you those were i mean again because they believed he had they got it believed to go the guy i mean i'm sorry the nice that had been used that's investigation there was no indication that deon was armed and dangerous there was no indication that he was a threat to their safety he was honor so based on the evidence in this case there the state simply did not meet its burden to show that this terry stop in search was constitutional and even if the initial searching and may please the court your honour's the search and seizure in this case was entirely reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts that were known to the officers those facts included their arrival at a scene of a violent incident a domestic stabbing just two to three minutes after that call came in and they see a woman matching the exact description of the offender with minor responded exiting the exact address where that violent incident had just occurred a third officer when they arrive goes into the building to actually corroborate bad call to see what was going on and the officers feared for their safety not for general reason but for the specific and credible reason that they believe might have responded with concealing the knife that was used in the stabbing because they did not see a bolt and the offender's pockets or waistbands basis for their belief the testimony from officer rodriguez your honor was that he did not see a badge and know you're right that was a specific credible fear for officer safety defendants arguments distinguishable because when courts typically find that that's unbelievable fear for safety it's because the reason i take you laid it is because it was at night because it was a high crime area because it was an area known for drug activity here we actually had specific facts articulated that related to the case because they believe there was a weapon i'm a young man that you others i'd like to address here you here say incident and the courts are clear that cause them to believe that he was yes that's a reasonable belief we have to look at it from the the facts known to the officers and how would a reasonable officer act in that situation and courts are clear that when the responding to an incident that does she was carrying a purse with that justify the police officer in searching her and certainly your wife because as you just pointed out during my response argument he was walking with her he was talking with her they had a reasonable belief based on those facts that he had been somehow involved in medicine so for out of articulated fear for their safety they could absolutely search him to make sure that he wasn't if the theory is that it's warranted because they don't see a bulge on the woman but she's got a purse where anything could be in a purse were there be any basis to believe that it's ok to search or pain that would be a reasonable belief point out of concern for officer safety but here we don't have those facts we don't have a purse and the officers acted reasonably given that they had just arrived at the scene of the temporal proximity justifying their belief that one of these two people was armed they were going to have to investigate this stabbing and they wanted to make sure that before they did so no one was going to pull a they could and that would be reasonable there's a weapon involved the reasonable officer cases distinguish use a weapon there's a distinction between handguns and other types of weapons or certainly certainly in this case in no but we had to officer searching two individuals a knife could be dangerous instrument given that ratio of officers individuals so again terry is all about reasonableness the officers here did act reasonably to ensure unsupported by the record that is pure conjecture and this court should not overturn the ruling of the trial court base of time facts that are completely absent from the record but well as the people pointed out in their brief this is simply not the kind of case with  that was presented in florida vs jail or in any of the cases that that say that where there is a anonymous tip a truly anonymous it tip involving an informant and a call of a man with a gun that was the specific clothing of florida versus jail anonymous call of a man with a gun you need more than just that we don't have that here now to respond to had the burden at the court the row to prove the illegality of this search he chose not to concern himself with the facts of the call  the state then does have the burden to show that the search was it was legal according to the totality of the circumstances and as i mentioned the facts of this case the totality circumstances were proven that there was objective facts  suspend minor spite head the ultimate burden and he never brought up anything to do with the reliability of the call the testimony at the motion was that a call came in this was a police dispatch courts are clear police can rely upon radio communications including police dispatch at well with other facts to justify a terry stop and frisk here we had the police dispatch and then we had the cooperation of this exact suspect leaving this exact address just two to three minutes minor spine it's cases that involve half hour hour later weeks later in this case two to three minutes is a very short time and it increases the reasonableness of their actions i'll give them the fact that it was a black female apparent and even that minor responded clearly wasn't the husband involved in this case but questions like better it is going to deep for the purposes of terri that's going up to a probable cause even maybe reasonable doubt here all we have to show is articulable suspicion and reasonable this and that was shown given the temporal proximity and the matching description yes i'd like to address also the propriety of what my responding characterizes as the second search that was performed in this case no such rule exists in terry jurisprudence that prohibits police from heading down twice minnesota versus dickerson spells out the two most important rules concerning the scope of the terry frisk the first one is that it must be designed to detect weapons which would protect the officers not just to discover evidence and secondly that there can be no continued exploration after a determination has been made that the suspect is an armed in this case neither apply the search was calculated to discover weapons the first one was we had testimony it was a search so it was a brief pat down and immediately after we don't have a type thing but immediately after another officer conducts another pat down at the waist there's no i don't believe that was frisk it was at the waist line and that's where the road thirty eight caliber revolver was was recovered all minor respond it's cases especially dickerson involve as you mentioned more intrusive searches into pockets officer feels balance that he should know is not a weapon and discovers a bag of drugs or as in the rossum case officer goes into the pockets and finds proceeds from the robbery should know that's not a weapon here we don't have that here we just have a second pat down a waistline calculated to discover weapons no evidence that there was a prior determination that might respond it was an armed this was absolutely within the scope of a proper terry frisk based on there being no rule that a second pat down is i just have a few points first of all the burden is on the state because in this case it's uncontested that dionne angeles and weren't doing anything suspicious at the time of the stop so they one officer has some officer has to have a basis for knowledge here all we know is that there was a call the state perhaps did have this information but for whatever reason they choose not to interview said at trial so based on the record we have we have no way to determine the basis of knowledge which is equivalent to an anonymous tip and the reason why is florida versus yale pointed out that's a problem is because this could have just been a prank or of indot at someone seeking to  just create an embarrassing intrusive incident furred you list or deion so based on the record that we have this is an anonymous tip it's just like jail it's just like right heart and third regarding the second search  t your honor there was indeed a search of the pocket so i can't locate the exact records site right now but i'm certain of that and to the officer himself testified that he was searching again because even though the initial pat down had not found any weapons he just knew that one of them had this night so he was going to search again there's no authority for the fact that you know you get one one pat down she determined that there was not a so correct they are gonna be on the bouncers for going into the pockets but in that second search i mean there's there's just simply no authority of it securely since that officer himself testified that the reason he was doing it was essentially investigation