your results when liberty is restrained by show of authority by a law of law enforcement officer as judge from a reasonable person's perspective in this case my client's car is broken down on one side of a divided four lane highway the highway patrol officer in a marked highway patrol car is going the other direction the highway sees the car comes to a stop comes over the media and pulls in behind the car hawke's this horn activates his light gets out of his car starts walking toward my client who are stand up to fifteen yards in front of his vehicle and the officer summons my client back some of the c e o waved him to come back he said motioned with one word that was used your honor at one point in the first trial of this matter the government actually used the word acquired appellee to come to the police car he was seized so under that case alone there was a seizure based on the motioning or directing by the highway patrol officer to my client to return under a totality standard all the facts in addition to the directing or motioning or summoned show that my client was not free to leave the officer was in a uniform he was armed his car was parked behind my client's car the officer's car was a marked squad car the officer of hauntings horn and activated his lights got out went some just in my client who was ten to fifteen yards in front of his vehicle so he said twenty to twenty five yards from the officer and the officer directs him back under all those circumstances no one would feel at least reasonably feel they were free to leave do we care about the officers and kit what he  know the only reason the only way the officers intent would be relevant your honor is if he told my client you are free to leave at that point his intent would be relevant if he doesn't share that fact that my client i repeatedly conceded that you are sixteen seventy six and two seventeen there was no suspicion no reasonable suspicion whatsoever nonetheless when the officer took my client's driver's license he didn't give it back he took the driver's license he couldn't leave it would be unreasonable for him to yourself say to him at that point when he something that was the first thing the officers you know i can't that's on the video your honor but he did go immediately to what the officer described as the public assessed yeah there is no i looked at the video and there's the first part is he doesn't kick in for just right away right but it really looked as if he was seeing if he could be of some help at that initial contact i would agree that there's not a unless he told my client you are free to leave and he never said that that's undisputed and later on when he put him in the rear of the current you start to run out of time here he said you're not under arrest you know what does that have to do anything that well he was illegally seized without any suspicion so that's all consumed by the fact that this should be thrown out the outside plus at that point you don't see it in assessed that you can make two individual analysis of the initial encounter and then what i thought was he said well let me see your license i thought it was the second time he got the license passed the fellow down at the scene and the body which i think is a lo position so that if the seizure didn't occur during the first set of circumstances there could be quite a question as to whether the seizure occurred during the second sequence of events i completely agree roger you only get to the second set of circumstances if you deem the first injured to be lawful then of course that second seizure is also on lawful juridical court didn't make any findings as to that second over the kill as this is some place on the interstate where drivers frequently run out of gas or have favorite like the defendant informs the office certain that he has a suspended license so that he already knows this person has a suspended license but it is also reasonable for an officer to want to know who he is who is going to be writing in the back of his career with  case if mr martinez had contacted somebody and help was on the way or if he knew he was only two miles out of town and someone was going to meet him at the gas station they would say thinks cars are broken down thank different in that then the officer may gotten back in his vehicle pulled around and asked what was going on there now the question is why they are down the road see isn't the real question is whether the result person would have feel free to leave the second set of events is basically the officer only asked for mr martinez license to one time and that was as they were getting into the vehicle after martinez having stepped in the offer for the ride as the officer told mr martinez he could no longer push him up the hill because of the suspended license he couldn't knowingly assist someone put continuing to break the law and driving with the suspended license actually called in to help both the officer and mr martinez were already in the car on know i don't think it's i don't think it's really true as you're out there and i know that is subjective intense isn't necessarily relevant but i think from the circumstances in watching the change that's not what he's doing is no going and on the go and there's no yelling there's nothing and he even says in that hearing transcript he was nothing but a conversational tone there wasn't any reason for him to use anything but a conversational t with respect said chand given as there the officer did have his hand on this weapon the entire time and he never asked anything about can i help you that doesn't mean that that's the standard necessary to effect a seizure that w of the circumstances here in that case here we have a different to tell these circumstances but again it would i give lectures to high school kids in junior high kids and actually schools where they take kids who are having trouble and they go there to try to rehabilitate them by case i get these know your rights lectures i can't believe i could tell a kid in these circumstances if this happens to them they would be free to go about whatever their business was and walk away and going about business is actually a phrase that you used in chain and jim innes here jose martinez business was walking toward town in the officer after we did everything else summonsed him back he wasn't free to go about his business he was seized at that time he was further seized with no reasonable suspicion when he had to give his driver's license when it was ran for a warrant check and again this officer may have his general personal policies but that doesn't create an exception to the fourth amendment