not plain view and if he correct me if i'm misunderstanding this as well but the officers had every right to be in the parking lot of the apartment complex so they were in a place they had permission to be without terry without more chinos without the informant they could have been walking down the street and if they see a handgun on the and on the floorboard of the car they see that in plain view so i'm not sure i understand why we're even doing the martinez analysis your honor  incorrect under marty and that is from the reference so the government agrees that the car was in a public parking lot where these men had no right to privacy at the farm was in plain view that the officers had a right to go and take the gun from the car whether that was by consent as was testified to by one of the officers or whether that was  by the fact that there was a public safety reason for an officer to obtain a firearm which is in plain view when they have an active investigation going with the number of people that any control the district court finding w that is also correct your honor there was also some other individuals before mr norbert even approached law enforcement at the scene there were a number of individuals that law enforcement or a interacted with and as mr norbert was approaching  did did the police officers need reasonable suspicion under terry to ask whose handgun is this knows where and he and they don't need reasonable suspicion or terry to say sequence of events because when we read the factual recitations in the briefs and even in the records it's not completely obvious sort of minute to minute how this unfolded just my understanding is that mr norbert was not when the police officers approached a group of individuals was normal is not there that's why when he when someone says who's infinity is this one of the individuals should as and engaging in a similarly voluntary conversation with the police officers makes a sort of looks over his head gesture and then mr nor comes from some other part of the parking lot and says oh man i was going to run but i saw you had officers on the other side over there so i just came back yes so at what point i think it's on and everyone agrees that there's some scary stuff at some point because  found the marijuana the other individuals before mr norbert was patted down but certainly by the time that mr norbert was walking back to law enforcement i saw more of you on the other side so i decided i'd just come on back at corroborated from the initial call that had been made by the manager at the apartment that enough was observed by law enforcement upon the scene that they were able to herman that there was in fact a black and a matching that phone call it was a group of men it was a individual who approached them with a matching complection that had been described by the caller identified themselves as being with the apartment management  and by that and the individual not only that but the individual that had been trying to run away was that very individual the one that went by and matched the complection claim to ownership of the  five she specifically identified the apartment complex for the drug dealing with her and specifically said it was occurring in the park in the parking lot where i was that records i want to read and just drive the drug dealing is a personal safety issue report in adams versus way i'm so which was cited by by the supreme court again an average person california criminal behavior does not need to be personally observed by police or reasonable suspicion and  alabama vs white they talk about when an informant shown to be right about some things he or she is probably right about other things including the object of the tip being engaged in criminal matter is that we're still looking at that is how the circumstances determine whether a reasonable suspicion existed and in this case reasonable since this suspicion did exist  proposition that finding a gun in plain view requires reasonable suspicion well your honor in this situation we have eight states rare but for the experienced stop the gun would not have been found with so what would be the case what is the authority that you would rely on to say that we therefore need to go back to the martinez factor is applied to the apartment manager to justify finding a handgun in plain view your honor ok so what would be the best case i'm just looking for a case any case from any jurisdiction any court that would say that we need to have reasonable suspicion and we need to apply the martinez factors as applied to the informants to justify finding a handgun in plain view apparently mr norman did not live there is card it's not like he was parked in his parking spot at his home it was he because they were in a parking lot congregated together the officers looked in the window and something in gun both of them said that they disagreed slightly on where it was on the ground in that in the  in the car was it on the floorboard was it between the seats but they saw it in plain view and i i looked and read your cases and i can't find one and i'm hoping maybe today you have your honor that was an issue that the district court determined that we had to look at know i have a handgun and i drop it and a police officer walks finds us who's going is this the canadian officer asked me that question without having a reasonable suspicion under the theory well your honor i believe that here it would apply in that case then it would be especially in situations such as  illegal can we since you brought up jail let's let's just take a quote from it this is from beach to seventy one all the police had to go on was the bare report of an unknown unaccountable informant neither explain how he knew about the crime nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information so in in this case you have an apartment manager who admittedly doesn't give her name and so but we know that it's an apartment manager right that's the the police do that's what the police understand aparna manager personally witness this and then provides all manner of detail including identifying information about the individuals that type inmates make and model of the car and as far as i can tell the only thing she messed up and as this writer points out he was you know her to be the police officers transposed the two in a five if she's off by one digit between six movies a six digit alphanumeric license plate number and it contains both two and fives and she used an extra two instead of an extra five yes ryder and what we would say that she actually provided to the officers witnessing this at this exact moment with my eyeballs i see this going on here the people doing it here's the kind of car here's a license plate well none of them from jail no it's not a rider and ask deep that if this situation they were he brought up something very important we don't know if it was going on which made the call we have nothing to indicate that it was something that was going on or that it was the start of when or yet or anything of that nature  informant tip that we all agree i would assume that the police have the right to investigate the tip right absolutely you can disagree about what they have to do to investigate but they can investigate it just if if the woman says i'm the manager at this apartment complex and this is happening in my parking lot whether she says it's happening in this instance or it happened to minutes ago if the police go to exactly where she said it was happening and they see the exact people she described with exact a car with the almost exact  i don't understand what more they're supposed to do before they can approach and figure out if everything else she said is also true but what else are they supposed were they supposed to call the apartment complex maybe and be like can i talk to the manager would make sure that this is not a prank i'm not sure what else they're best case that would say you have the th amendment obligates you to call the apartment complex and identify the purple color before you go to them go to the place she said that they would be and while law there they are well your honor i don't believe we have a case that is right on point regarding calling an apartment complex but we would state that we have a situation where accept any corroboration of the illegal activity itself then the government has no just what i'm getting at is i'm just trying to figure out so so far we've gone through three legal propositions and we haven't found any precedent but least the public defender's office is not aware of any and so obviously we see cases of st impressions maybe your position is this is this is completely a case of of st impression about the question of plainview it's acquits a question of st impression about the terry stop and it's a question st impression about what else you have to do to identify properly the corrupt informant for the tipster i guess what i'm trying to get at is do you have anything they can guide the court in its application wall that says where a woman or a woman calls and says here's a bunch of information it was to say here's five facts if the police officers can corroborate or of them why are they not allowed to approach the individuals to try to  question mr i honor on this employment didn't even use the not one when service did not provide her name her address her telephone number so we had much different now she said she was with apartment management but that wasn't  all say she shares to call the sheriff's department so she did not actually even call the agency since this was inside the city limits jackson she didn't even call the agency that would normally be investigating that the officers in this case weren't allowed to approach the individuals and conduct the terry stopped until they saw drugs change hands break we would agree that watching the drug changes would not be reasonable suspicion that would be probable cause you you would need to do a terry stop you could just straight up arrest everybody so they need to have something licensed in the drug scene and i'm confused then what you're something less than is something less than your honor this is just an example of something off the top of my head would be something that indicates drug activity is scary not for example if the tipster had provided information such as the and this is me totally just giving an example but such as he says that comes out of apartment number at such and such time sits there for five minutes two cars or he goes to the window of the car and the other individual goes to the other window of the car transactions a car something that could be observed that would indicate that criminal activity is very nice but we don't have that in skates and we it's a situation where because we don't have that as the district  judge davis she making that point for me that that is exactly what we believe the district court was saying in this case the district court gave a descriptive analysis of three specific supreme court cases and actually case that we have a day and that that's the only thing that was given by the ins form it was a description they readily observable description that basically anyone out there and see and then accu have where she actually has said that it's not it's riskier to coming days so it's a little confusing than the record of what actually she observed as opposed to what actually she heard from other people we also have a situation where the tipster made no population in jackson mississippi of one hundred and seventy five thousand people and that eighty two percent of days are african americans i think we could say approximately half days would be male african americans that doesn't really limit down on the population it doesn't really help with support the description that she may we also had that no surveillance was conducted by law enforcement no signs of drug dealing were same bad officers and no it's  revisit something that general of them had mentioned finding a handgun in a vehicle in plain view in a parking lot where none of those individuals at be getting to that behavior i personally observed and had received reports on from other individuals eight hours after the they are still out there doing the pattern is repeated  the fact that as an admission from women argument that there was no support for illegal activity there even prior to finding the drugs on the individual that was not cooper mr norbert cannot assert any sort of right on the op ed but prior to that we had mission orbit returning to the scene saying hey i saw that there was law enforcement comment and i was going to run away so he at the very beginning is telling them i am running away from want or i'm getting out of this situation which again heightens reasonable suspicion and corroborates the fact that there was in fact illicit activity that was going on in that area  are so like to address the argument that description of mr norbert it's a bunch of men in jackson again in this in this case