second of two thousand and one now here even though the district court's findings we really articulate probable cause the court nonetheless that there was a fair probability that defendants james baker were moving something illegal and they didn't want police to find it the court went on that a prudent officer reasonably could conclude defendant baker removed the bundle because it was contraband they did not want the police to find the court also found that the tally of the circumstances would have made it obvious treat that there is a fair probability that criminal conduct could be occurring or maybe a foot or that i don't could be contraband or could contain evidence of a crime  astray was in applying that legal standard to the uncontested facts of this case rather than taking a step back and looking at the fa  in gun drug and gang cases could these officers reasonably believed that there is a fair probability of criminal conduct or coffee craft and there are two guns that are under the sea so that objects i mean it's not small but it's not huge the issue though is even though the district court one of the opinions that she finds is even after she says that hey there were spare probability that a crime was occurring or something illegal was happening she says they're moving something illegal which actually gets to a slightly different question what's is there necessarily a criminal offense involved in moving something illegal to use the phrase  circumstances here m h twenty two the opinion to tell you the circumstances would have made it obvious to a prudent police officer that criminal activity likely was a foot so in the district court's opinion her finding she has made the conclusion that whatever that item is it is something illegal it is contraband and it is indicative of criminal activity the problem though is even though this bundle may be larger than simply a handgun and that's what we're looking for here is a handgun it doesn't mean that it's not a handgun there's a case that i'd like to sort of draw the court's attention to and is actually cited in defendant  have found a reasonable basis to arrest a person was there something distinctive about that bundle no there was not there was a bundle but that's not standard it doesn't have to automatically telegraph its existence that this is the but here what we look at when we look at those limits as we know discrete court hasn't said you need three items of evidence to find a crime we need four items to sort of present circumstances here i think what you look at is what are they doing before hand if they were simply walking up to the house putting out a washer and dryer trying to load it down to a truck or something like that i don't think anyone in the world would look at that just on that face and say oh i think there's a crime here but where you have mr baker roughly matching the description of the suspect in terms of height weight rates age and gender where you have mr baker linked all over the place with a car that the suspect was driving on the sixteenth in which he takes out a gun chambers a bullet points if someone says you have five minutes to get i mean neighborhood before i kill you he's in that car in march of two thousand and one he's in it in june of two thousand and one and june seventeenth of two thousand and one it's at a residence that is independently associated with him thing is they did not identify a defendant's mate but significant they play the stuff in the sure but he issue is she was not eliminated he was never eliminate is the suspect and what's important about that i just when it was shown to the witnesses they look at it and they didn't say he's not here but rather selection was difficult because the person was wearing  here mr j has standing under the doctrine of rackets and set down by the united states supreme court mr j as the owner who has title to that vehicle has standing to object to a search of what is in that vehicle mr baker does not he is the now and he's not the owner he is what we call under the supreme court the mere passenger so yes this court can say hey there searched the issue though is if there's an unlawful search whose rights are being violated and who benefits from the suppression mr jay certainly does but mr baker is a mere passenger doesn't have that reasonable expectation of privacy under supreme court in one circuit vehicle or the item to be seized they could have objection and they could have standing or an expectation that they could a certain course mr baker though he had the ability did not be searched a property or possessory interest in either that vehicle or those items and his touch or the items he never tested by the attached with the items were absolutely he was doing and a reason not to do those hands up and that's absolutely true and that is absolutely true but he had the ability to come under the map so that he might have by time doctor subjectively believe he was keeping it private objectively it wasn't reasonable baker goes a step further he puts in a vehicle to shut the door and walks away defendants may have been moving something that was contraband but the standard for probable cause is that there is a link to the defendants committing a crime so that there's a fair probability that the defendants have contraband maybe they don't maybe they have to start with her factual finding it is going to take them maybe out of that part because she's got a sufficient finding to support probable cause of of moving something illegal use  if there's probable cause that they're moving something illegal i guess the question becomes is there enough of a connection between moving something illegal and the crime that's necessary to have probable cause that a criminal offense is being harassed and i understand her discussion goes on to talk about the need for specific intent and so forth but since the only kind of items that are are really under consideration here would be either a firearm or drugs in this case position of either would be sufficient i  don't understand what the specific intent discussion is all about it seems to me her finding is tantamount to finding probable cause which she did not conclude so there must be something missing in between but i'm not sure what's missing well i think that what's difficult and maybe  with the words that she has used a fair probability i think there are two different ways i'd like to respond to that i think first of all there are scenarios that would suggest that absolutely innocent havior could be occurring it could be that after mr  circumstances conclude that they are there is criminal some sort of criminal activity afoot is that probable cause to arrest and i don't think it is the words likely to use the words that she fair probability that the defendants both reckon had committed a crime because that requires specification of knowing exactly which crime is being committed not a specific crime but a type of crime and i think that's in this context are not related to a sequence of events that would that would permit and inference that either one or both were being committed it is simply a matter of speculation the fourth amendment to be adequately protected and i think i in rethink confess to crimes generally with impunity without giving any kind of arrest because you're not going to tell people you get a warrant you need to state with particulary what isn't that's going to be ceased if if this information were taken to a judge that maybe these folks have contraband conduct of the defendant and specific criminal activity now all of the cases that the government has cited saying that well you don't need it with with pursue jand say exactly what crime has been committed still if you look at those there's a general type of crime there's either people running from an area where it's likely a robbery or burglary has been given over to the contrary very authority says you have to have a specific type of crime because generally the statement to something so general and so vague i think you seriously risk undercutting the essential protections of the fourth amendment and even in the context of terry versus ohio  we think they're regular stock certificates so it's not like they're being picked up just because we think they're bad guys they had a pretty clear idea of what it was they thought they were going to find these officers were seasoned and they had hunches and they turned out to be right but based on the observable and objective facts and criteria anything could have been in that bundle and the government never points to the facts what the government relies on consistently in it be absolutely sharpened by by those years on the street that doesn't mean necessarily that their respect for the fourth amendment is particularly refined  decided by the government you know we're not dealing with a truck we're not dealing with a purse we're not dealing with a glove box we're not dealing with just a traffic stop that escalates into something else so we have here is an individual being on baker who the police officers as and where it's been described by mr caring and as the countervailing measures that were taken by then you have a situation where the officers actually see officers that actually had contact with mr baker approximately three months before the june sixteenth incident and for the end to conclude based on association with the car and the fact that mr baker's black and baker roughly matched the description that they had probable cause i think it is significant that when there was a threat on even though none of the witnesses excluded anybody that they were able to identify so one of the officers heth they had a turns out that oh yeah there was a relationship there and i think the fact of her denial itself becomes positive evidence that there's a reason for her denial there's a reason she's trying to break the link which makes them like an even stronger i don't know if we can speculate what their reasoning is quite frankly i mean when you have a citizen police contact i mean denial is something that probably is the first reaction what's interesting is that the police never took the time to find out who the register owner of that car was this really that would have been a clue  practically playing and i don't know if you could search the car just based based on well on a terry stop they probably could search the car they could but that's not what likely as probable more than reasonable and that james baker were involved that should have been the end of the matter there her next step and so starts to straight apart from that the application although  suspected that mr baker was involved and mr james being a felon in possession on the twenty second they also believe that when that car was associated on the twenty second with mr baker that he was in fact the male about six foot twenty four blue pants brown shirt white shoes running from the back officers minutes later see a car backing quickly or driving quickly out of a driveway in the vicinity of the bank they noticed that the driver is an african american male with short hair ne appears to be looking around suspiciously nervous big over and when they pull him over they know that he's sweating and that he's wearing blue that's where the district lines you know your honor i do not remember i do not recall and i do not really see in the record anywhere at the government ever said we're just claiming terry