to suppress the motion to suppress aroused out of the following facts in the middle of the day abba c was parked at a car wash in his car just as was in the passenger seat the anaheim police department had been following justice in san bernardino due to a warrant for grand theft the anaheim police department asked the san bernardino police department to arrest justice whose car was parked in the car washed all the anaheim police department watch justice leave his car and get car which was parked in another car washed all both anaheim and san bernardino police officers were at the car wash just as was arrested handcuffed and placed in a police car without incident he complied there was no evidence they had weapons or anything illegal or dangerous there were no wants or warrants for advocacy in the officers had no evidence against at the scene they were given the erroneous information that at the c n n justice were roommates after having arrested theft and that is enough reason to have reasonable suspicion that he may be involved with the gentleman he's invited into his car in this case they're not driving i think that's significant for some legal cases they were driving together they there's some circumstantial evidence that they know each other right there is and that the and the justice is a known felon getting into a car with another gentleman right that's correct there's the other gentleman the step outside they don't ask of the shooter they have guns out and they tell him to step outside why isn't that reasonable suspicion that he may be in gauged in some activity with just and therefore a terry frisk for officer safety might be necessary well i think this is distinguishable from some of the other cases because the warrant was for a grand theft in another jurisdiction which was completed so there's no evidence of an ongoing crime that abba scene might be involved in with justice but initially if there were a terry frisk it would not have discovered the cocaine there's a substantial law that cited in the papers that a terry frisk is for weapons only and  and under inclusive it's not directed to the point the purpose for which the officer said he asked the question which was to discover something that might hurt the officer or endanger the officer and were also arguing that at that point he was under arrest so he couldn't be interrogated officers they knew nothing against advocacy and justice as i say was on was wanted for a warrant something in the past no indication of any ongoing crimes and no indication that he was dangerous and the authority washington versus lambert which the government cites supports the defense because here you got during the day there in a public car wash albacete who was not suspected of anything was ordered out of his car and handcuffed and he's surrounded by armed officers with their weapons drawn and aimed at him in washington you've got two men suspected of nineteen armed robberies stopped in an underground parking garage officer shot and spotlights pointed their guns at the man they were ordered out of the car handcuffed patted down and the police argued that's an investigatory stop the th circuit said no in this nation all people have a right to be free from the terrifying and humiliating experience of being pulled from their cars at gunpoint handcuffed or made to lay face down on the pavement the police may not employ such tactics every time they have an articulable basis for thinking that someone may be a suspect the infringement on personal liberty resulting from so intrusive an investigatory stop is simply too great so under ordinary circumstances where they've only got reason a suspicion to make an investigatory stop the th circuit s drawing weapons using handcuffs and other restraints will violate the th amendment but the problem i take you to probably you're really focused on is the admission which led to the drugs which led to everything else and so i yes i didn't see you respond to the government's point that under petain which was a plurality but it's been applied in the circuit in many cases you can't suppress the fruits of a you know statement how do you how do you respond to that you know i don't remember that there was one case this side which talked about a voluntary statement and this was not voluntary you can't call it while material he's being pulled out of the car gunpoint but i  there is a supreme court case law that talks about how the remedy for that is not to suppress the suppression of physical evidence which is what came out here which was the bag of cocaine which in turn led to the to the search of the car and everything else that followed and i didn't see a response to that point that the government made in your reply brief no i'm sorry i don't remember and i think in this case the only way they got the evidence was to ask him the question it would not have been uncovered by a frisk because that was only for weapons and he did have no weapons if there's no further questions i'd like to reserve a few minutes of my time for a bottle good afternoon your honors please the court carolyn small on behalf of the united states with respect to the traffic stop the defense in their brief only made a th amendment argue argument with respect to the traffic stop they've now argued that argument for the st time that the stop in the frisk also violated the th amendment but their brief really only argued that the question do you have anything illegal on you was a violation of miranda because the defendant was in custody at the time that that statement was made so i just wanted to point out that the briefs don't actually make a th amendment challenge to the stop or to the frisk  person the defendant in the backseat he did not have a warrant out for his arrest the officers stopped the car guns were drawn they ordered everybody out and to freeze including the person in the back seat who did not have an arrest warrant out and the court says they'd officers didn't know who that was for all they knew that could have been somebody who was hitchhiking and had no relationship to the arrestees nonetheless when that person tried to walk away from the scene the officers ordered him back when he didn't comply they handcuffed him handcuffed him kept him at the scene and the court said while there may not have been probable cause to arrest him the officers were fully justified in detaining him at the scene to confirm his identity to make sure that he was not associated with the arrestees and sure ensure that there would be no evidence found on him that might connect him to the crimes for which the arrestees were wanted and the court said that there was reasonable suspicion to frisk him to make sure that he wasn't armed and that he wouldn't pose a danger to the officers or to the public and that the case is squarely on point here and for those same reasons articulated in vaughn the officers here had a reason to stop the defendant and to frisk him and actually this case is stronger because in vonne as the court said the officers had no idea who the person in the backseat was or if he was in any way connected to the arrestees whereas in this case the officer had information from anaheim police who were doing surveillance that the two shot justice the arrest the individual with the arrest warrant and the defendant had arrived at the car wash in separate cars and mr justice had gotten out of his own car and into the passenger seat of the defendant's car and they had information albeit mistaken that they were roommates so they didn't have to presume that there could be a connection they had information that there was a connection between the two for making the alternative inevitable discovery argument is it clear that the pat down for that limited to weapons would have led to the discovery of what i think would be a relatively small and would not feel like a weapon amount of cocaine i take the defense point that the officer didn't necessarily have during a frisk wouldn't have been able to reach into the pockets of the defendant absent that statement and so i think if the court were to decide this was a custodial interrogation that required miranda and that miranda violation require suppressing the physical evidence such that would reach the inevitable discovery argument i think at that point the district court didn't address potential factual issues as to what kind of pants the defendant was wearing whether the officer would have felt this packaging on the outside of the defendant's pants during a during a frisk absent the statement and so i think if the court does reach that issue which we don't think that it needs to it would need to go back to the district court for some additional factual finding no longer argue the remand as you had in your brief i mean an affirm and so on that ground as you do in your brief you would have to be remanded correct ok i think that's right but again we don't think the court needs to reach that issue there are a number of prior issues that would allow the court to affirm without ever getting to the inevitable discovery issue  honor this was not he was not in custody at that time again and it was a investigatory detention at that time and so to be clear we're talking about the ten to fifteen seconds between when he was st pulled out of the car and when he makes his admission and during that time the officers are investigating they're trying to determine who the defendant is they're trying to determine whether he's associated with  a reasonable look at who good person was the as a possibility to leave well during any forth during any seizure or a person is not free to leave the court looks at the of the stop and the reasonable notice of the officers conduct to decide when and investigatory detention transforms into a full fledged custodial arrest because even in a terry stop a person is not free to leave they're being seized and so here the officers conduct was reasonable again we're talking about a very short amount of time ten to fifteen seconds the the officers did pull out their guns and handcuff the defendant but that was reasonable under the circumstances given they were just this was an ordinary traffic stop they're executing not just one arrest warrant there's six multiple multiple  officers anaheim is on the scene san bernardino's on the scene that's not actually what the record what the evidence is in the record the evidence in the record is that there were only two officers on the scene it was officer mata and officer rawlings from san arrest warrant on mr justice and you only have one of their officer who is dealing with this unknown person one on one and so it's reasonable in those circumstances for officer safety to handcuff this person so the officers actions in this in these circumstances were reasonable and did not transform into a custodial arrest as your position on special condition to which is do you see down there that that special condition this in the center of this court's cases is not proper there is an unpublished disposition where the court did say that it was overly that condition was overly broad because it did not specify that the risks that must be posed to the persons and or the specific risks that must be posed by the defendant to those persons and organizations so there is unpublished and i'm published case on it our position is that there's really no commonsense reading i think  shows that the specific risks that have to be disclosed are the risks posed by that and then even though the condition doesn't spell that out because it would be nonsensical for the condition to say that the defendant has to disclose risks posed by some other person that being said if the court did deem that provision plainly unconstitutional our position would be that the proper remedy would be for the court to  i think i think and head to the court to determine that it was up to the district court to craft the language but i think this court has given guidance and other again on published cases that have to that additional language posed but specific arrests posed by the defendant to those organizations and persons i think the court in and published cases has said that that language is appropriate that anaheim police officers were surveilling him so i think they remained at the site and so there were two sets of pastors both anaheim and san bernardino at the time of his arrest other point i wanted to address is the issue about is distinguishable for a number of reasons st of all von involved a large scale drug trafficking operation that was ongoing and so there was some sense that when these people were driving in the car all together they might be part of this ongoing operation whereas here you have a car that stopped and a crime committed by just as in the past and some other jurisdiction is so there's no evidence that there's an ongoing crime in addition vonn made several attempts to escape and to abscond which makes that case a little bit different and  several attempts to walk away after the car was stopped and he had to get they had to keep bringing him back and then there was one other issue i wanted to address with respect to whether the cocaine would have been fall would have been found during the pat down or the frisk and there are some cases cited in the briefing where for example minnesota versus dickerson the supreme court held that crack cocaine seized from a pocket was the product of an unlawful search because the officer had already determined that the defendant's pocket did not contain a weapon and then