idly by when confronted multiple signals of criminal activity as a rule that finds no support in the fourth amendment the district court erred first by failing to address and find that probable cause independently supported the officer search being detained on the what you claim is a terry stop yes jury no terry stop you learn that there's a fourth amendment waiver just not in the record we have no idea what the fourth amendment waiver is the actual contents of the waiver are not and what we do have are is testimony from officers right after this that someone told them there was a fourth amendment waiver that they conducted a computerized records right but we don't know that the terms of it one of the officers testified that he was on a general summary probation and in his experience all probation california contained ok let's come back to that because i have a question about it but i'm just trying to figure out temporarily what happens here in the think your brief makes this bargain but let me put together a set of facts the police know that somebody has put in a car what appears to be a firearm and they then determine that he couldn't legally have possessed that firearm because he's a he's a felon would that give them probable cause to search the car independent of the fourth wave or discovery  that's right and that's why i'm asking you know but they are not and they're not they're not truly independent are they if they if if this terry stop was legal then didn't she didn't you derive probable cause to you having to judge what you're having difficulty if the officers hadn't learned anything from the terry stop they wouldn't have known of this gentleman's felony conviction correct and under those circumstances if you his felony conviction then you know there's probable cause that he's committed a crime because felons are not allowed to carry firearms so i'm not i'm trying not to say you're getting it into scenarios i'm trying to figure out whether at the time what's confusing to me is the father the the probable cause analysis in your brief seems to relate not to an awareness that he had a felony conviction but to the probability that he had committed a violation of california law involving the illegal possession of a concealed weapon you seem with the specter that probably cause analysis you want to avoid everything that they learned from the that officers had independent and see my difficulty with that just because of the way out is that i don't think you have probable cause independent of the stop to go into the car you may have had a fourth waiver to do that's a separate issue but so i don't assume if that's true assuming that independent of the stop had he not been stopped they just seen somebody do this and they said ok we want to search the car i have difficulty concluding that you had probable cause if  that's the case then what i'm trying to figure out is whether or not you have to rely on the stop to get your probable cause and you can put aside the waiver which is an independent issue that there's a separate california position that every time someone has a concealed weapon there is probable cause to search him in this instance however with mary the view of the silhouette of a firearm was married to the circumstances in which i was so what was there about that's where you have to have it has to be more likely than not that this there's a cause that a crime has been committed we're looking for probable cause now not the terry stop and that and that this gentleman is the one who's committing the crime your position is that if a california citizen walks away from the police and puts a firearm which he's entitled to possess under the second amendment into his car there's probable cause to believe that he's committed a crime when they are an individual way i think that's plenty for reasonable suspicion for a terry stop so i'm not i'm not trying to minimize it i'm just having some difficulty figuring out why if carrying a firearm is not  the supreme court's going to rule on depending cases why the fact that that somebody who puts it into his car has automatically then given you suspicion that he's not entitled to have it well that's really no different than the circumstances point so i guess i guess your argument is that given all the circumstances that you've described the way you reacted to the presence of the police all the other things you've talked about that he's not acting like someone who feels he has in his possession legally has in his possession a gun for which he has a permit he's acting like somebody who has a guilty state of mind yes your honor and for those reasons we would actually agree that there was reasonable fission to conduct the stop and right and so on and so me just i know you know you're over time so let me just make sure i understand your position if there was reasonable suspicion to conduct the terrorist stop and the police thereby learned that mr reed had a felony conviction then they didn't search the car until after that right correct so so they would have had now edge at the time wholly apart from the concealed weapons law and we don't know and we have some cases in your poem cited one that suggest that not all waivers not all circumstances are searchers the district judge never addressed that and so if we were to rely solely on the waiver i think we'd have to have a better record  so i'm just saying i could understand you'd rather win on the basis that you briefed rather than some other one i'm just telling you what the difficulty with that argument  make that stop then the subsequent search for some went to the probation condition was not a suspicion of the search it was one based in reasonable suspicion which the supreme court in united states versus night categorically blessed is reasonable under the fourth between unlawful terri stop and the seizure of the firearm in this case the government simply doesn't show that there was an independent source i think judge her which put his finger precisely on the issue is that the district court below specifically on pages twenty five to twenty seven of the excerpts of record in her order addressed out of prudence because the government again didn't raise of below whether there was an exception to  yes pretty low standard for terry suspicion the court to supreme court tells us and the district court of rights well and so what we have here is someone who goes to who walks away appears nervous puts what appears to be a gun in the car now they don't know that when they stop and they don't know these peer to peer when that it appears to be gun but they know that he's going to his car and put something in it and then was they saw mr reed among when they rolled into the park they got what as the district judge said the police got what they expected a bunch of people scattered when the police department and he appeared he appears to be a gang member that's not enough he walks away that's not enough correct but he didn't but he does something else he goes he goes to the back seat of a car puts something in it at that point that the officers don't know what is put in it but put something in receives in the car for five seven five to seven seconds and then shuts the car and returns to the park as something that the district court characterized as a hunch and we know hunch what hunch means in the terry's house so it's circumstances that seem to me that the arguably the isolation could give each factor an innocent explanation but it never seems to do the totality of the circumstances analysis of the supreme court has said has has to be done yeah i mean that there could be an innocent reason for going to the car that there could be an innocent reason for putting somebody in the car walking back to the park there could be an innocent reason for wearing the colors yes but you start putting it all together vague she acknowledged twice that this standard is the totality of the circumstances she says that twice and then she says on the basis of all the evidence i mean she's perfectly aware this is really experienced judge judge bush on it was a federal prosecutor she was a state judge for i think a decade she's been a district judge for several years she's aware of the standard she articulated what our standard of review here a standard review i normally it's do you know plus under are now right because what you said and i think you're right is the relevant facts take it in a light most favorable two the losing side are not disputed yes it's only basis of their knowledge of the local circumstances let me read you the actual passage from or nellis you know will pass for terry stop or for or for a fourth amendment probable cause determination believe it's for both reasonable suspicion and probable cause determination as for the supreme court said a trial judge views the facts in a particular case in the light of the distinctive features and events of the community this is a judge who was aware of the community circumstances she looked at what happened here on bunny day in two thousand and fifteen and said this was a technique this the officers were not simply showing up in response to the stalemate and i just let's assume that's true  assume this was meant to make people look suspicious so they could then stop them yes don't we just still look object even if it's a bad technique it's not an illegal technique in the sense that they didn't violate that are there and whether you draw one if for instance let's take one that the government and the court dispute the government makes a big deal about the fact that mr reid was walking back into the park when he was stopped even though the police said their goal was to stop the people who got further so away in fact one person completely left the park on molested they didn't go after him they went after mr reed who is coming back into the park the government says that's highly says fishes but the district court drew a different reasonable inference from this  that's not suspicious he's coming back toward police much my problem with that inference is that i suppose if he'd gotten a car and driven away the government would view that as evidence of suspicion to show that this is actions after going to the car seems to was wearing gang colors but it's interesting as far as this being a suspicion of criminality which of course is what we're concerned with with the terry stop the testimony was this was a bunny day this is a the bunny boy's was having a holiday here he had bunny boy scholars on the call the cops said the police said what they were concerned about were rival gangs coming disturbing the festivities causing problems present but with the cooper in court continually remind us that we don't look into the subjective motives of the police they may have acted with malice of forethought here to provoke to provoke somebody did indicate to give reasonable suspicion in fact i think that's what the record shows and the judge correctly perceive that the question is if what happens there after he ends up in the case is tell us that well gang membership isn't enough it's a factor to be considered leaving isn't enough but it's a factor to be considered so when you add all that to the fact that he obviously secrete something in the car and given the officers experiences that normally means contraband why do you have to meet a very low level of terry suspicion  or i don't think it does but let me just make my short time just make one other point that i think came up earlier and that's the case of united states versus job or job that's a case that i cited in twenty a j that says that if the person's prior conviction for the summary of the perp probation fourth waiver is not based on a violent felony as judge bay i pointed out then the waiver is not and what does record doesn't tell us what actually his record is in the record because the government put it in its visa waiver and or prior conviction well we don't have a copy of that waiver but what we have is prior convictions the government put that into its original brief in opposition to the motion of the press and what was that going to give us the records i  it's not an excerpt of record separate you think it's that it's attached the government's i believe it is an excerpt your honor because it was in the government's motion the government did his criminal printout record in its motion in two thirty nine and what was a conviction when you say they're in the record they're in a motion where the government asserts what they are as opposed to a copy of anything right that's what i'm looking at two thirty nine the government says in addition record checks revealed the following relevant criminal history but we don't have the actual conviction or the or the or the waiver in red and i also point out your honour's that is one thing under job that the person didn't actually have a violent felony which allowed which would activate the fourth waiver job also points out that if the police at the time don't know what the nature of that prior is do just has the same effect do you dispute the representation his the cops knew about the waiver and i went to look at the car i would say at the very least the record is unclear about it because there was some discussion that the district court questions one of the officers about what is it that you get back when you ask about the fourth waiver because she was asking tell me the specific wording of the fourth waiver and at least there's told that there's a fourth waiver but we're told there's a fourth waiver and one of the officers said they have some information about the person's prior record but they never said what it was or in this case what mr reed's record was simply that the organization the agency that provides them with this information has some information about their prior record but they couldn't give that they didn't give that it's not in the testimony the only thing in the testimony is that he did have a fourth waiver but the conditions even we just wanted to know what they were i'm just trying to the i've seen this part and that the my question was perhaps and precise i'm looking at page thirty two thirty nine it doesn't indicate for which of the offenses the fourth waiver was was in effect is that correct that's my understand i mean i thought that you  others that may or may not have been probation right doesn't this is that so we just we just can't tell on this record whether or not his fourth waiver was in connection with which crime and whether it was probation or parole right absolutely i think that if even if the officer even if it's not clear even the record leaves uncertain whether the officers knew the specific nature of his convictions they did know that he had this of fourth waivers so he had he did have a record of some kind of psych that they were aware of that that's fair yes i think it's fair so if i would have then be a reasonable inference on their part given the fact that he has a record and given the way in which he is acting everything has been described about how he walks out of the park and goes to the car and put something in the car would be if a reasonable inference for them to say well he's acting like somebody who knows in light of his record whatever the specifics of the record are he's acting like someone who knows that he's not supposed to have a gun in his possession so is it he's acting like someone who has a record befell him and hence knows he's not supposed to have a gun but that via a reasonable inference of the officers to me i i can't say are all i can do is i will just concur what the district court said it seems like what what mr he did was exactly what the police expected to happen when they set this up but it's expected apparent gang members to move away that would allow them to rustle some people up to pick some people and the police thereby learned whatever they communicated which the record seems to say this guy has a record he's on a fourth waiver i don't think that's disputed what if if you know and they've also looked into the car at that point and seeing what appears so your honor because i mean i have a separate area and i know i've run out of time but nobody argues this in their briefs and that's that's just the problem this is wasn't teed up and that means that because the government has the burden they simply didn't they didn't show that genuinely there was probable cause they didn't show there was independent they didn't show that the police officers knew that this was a valid waiver under joe they couldn't have because the case had been decided yet they didn't even show that this was not arrested a fact or arrest rather than simply a terry stop in which case they would have needed probable cause at avenue not simply reasonable suspicion and i argued that in my brief that this is just like washington this is just like edwards