teaching of the court's fourth amendment jurisprudence is the demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated the importance of this demand goes well beyond cases in which evidence of criminal wrongdoing is discovered this quarter in united states versus mccoy affirmed the district court's suppression of evidence and noted the district court's thoughtful discussion in support that discussion described the importance of specificity as an open war against racial profiling and differential treatment of those who happen to live or to drive through areas that are considered to be high crime areas and the question in this case presents the issue of the bounds of specificity required by the fourth amendment in the terry stop context the question is whether a police officer was justified in stopping two african american men where the only physical description police officer had at the time of the stop was that there were two armed african american men wearing heavy dark clothing the men were walking on a street that was parallel to was street where five minutes earlier two men were seen running shortly after a cell i understand it the information he had was he had the specification of race but that they were black or white and that would have precluded some percentage of people at the scene he was told there weren't dark clothing the location in which he found that he wasn't six miles from the site or whatever in the direction in which they were moving it was also told the number of individuals was two not three or one or more what what president is there that would allow us to say that that information that it's clear or at the core to conclude that was vision well frankly there's a very in terms of location i would say the camacho case is the clue through so much always is totally distinguishable because because camacho there was no description there was no description at all  committed and the report that the officer had contrary to some of the cases you cited was from his own dispatcher who had gotten it from the from the nine eleven call and was presumably reliable is different not sense right but also isn't reasonable suspicion on a sliding scale so that the degree of suspicion you need on depends in a sense on the degree of the intrusiveness of the stop and i'm struggling with the notion that that office that the officer in this case officer golden didn't have an office at that point to with the stop these two men and problematic factors in both the description and the location first with a description the there was nothing unusual about wearing heavy clothing for example on october thirty first be off their golden five minutes later he encountered mr arthur and mr brown and he said he said that that was an eighth of a mile from the cell phone store which was right on the corner of mall three in washington the most reasonable hypothesis is that people who are running are going to be a lot farther away than an eighth of a mile he was also told that they were running in the direction of the n p t a station and as officer golden went down rule three st he took a left turn also on the left on kenwood and he bypassed the most direct route to the n p t station in appendix one on page two seventy seven there's a map of the area a if you look at the map of the area even though he said that he saw nobody on the streets that he rode on and that's a very narrow swath of where somebody who had been running for five minutes might be if you look it's a veritable warren of streets in that area and side streets so i don't think that much could be concluded from his not having seen his anyone on his brief trip  other problems i think with that were patient when he came upon mr arthur and mr brown they were not out of breath they were not perspiring they were not startled there isn't the kind of co the information but it's not if he were merely to ask a couple of questions he didn't have to engage in a stop they were actually cooperative he could have said can i ask you a few questions but in fact he said show me your hand yeah and well i say again and within within a minute after we stop them begin getting other information that made it very clear to him that they were the right people well then i think you can only use the information that he had at the time of the stop to assess the truth but you can only balance that against the initial questioning in other words bad information wasn't justification for taking them to show up identification well that's a different issue that's right now if the cases that the government relies on and in which this court has found reasonable suspicion based on location and physical description involves locations that are far closer to the scene of the crime and have a much richer descriptions so for example in was scarred he the police came upon the defendant immediately at the discovered so i'd like to rely on the briefs for the eyewitness identification issues thank you altair case is context is everything and there are obviously factual differences between this case and this court's precedents but what we had here in us district court found were descriptions of the suspects race gender the number of suspects the color of their clothing and we had a report the officers had a report about the location the suspects had traveled the direction they were traveling that was confirmed by an eyewitness to their flight on mulcher street what do you say  minutes he would argue no way they would have been where to answer to that one it's there's a bit of an inconsistency in arguing they should have been closer to the scene if they were running but the officer has already noticed they would have been long gone farther away but the officer here testified that in soon as he received initial dispatch of just the robbery he was according to his testimony approximately three blocks away from the cellphone store and he activated his lights and siren and started driving and he approached the cell phone store he gets another report that there are two black men running down the street he turns the wrong way down stops to talk to them and raking leaves continues on his way this is all happening very quickly whether that one inference that could be drawn from the facts is that the suspects who had turned from military onto a side street and on to the parallel street can look where they were encountered might have heard the siren of the police car might have been alerted to police presence or might have just known or guessed that when they're running away from an armed robbery someone might try to find them they could discard their weapons their clothing slow to walk try to appear not suspicious at the time anyone found them that seems to be an inference that's well supported by the record here it wasn't found explicitly by the district court but it's the facts support that and in all cases as it is as a district court found and as the officer testified after he confirmed with the man raking leaves that two black men had run past he continued down the street and around the corner and saw the two  the description that he had been given and he said that when he saw them he stopped his car because they matched one was a heavier man and he didn't know yet that one suspect was heavier thinner but he described them as one was heavier wearing the black coat and jeans and the other was skinnier and wearing the maroon or reddish brown sweat shirt and black pants that was what he knew dark heavy clothing two black men in the right location at the right time he was certainly justified in stopping his car and asking them