may please the court my name is david mccall again i'm the attorney are going on behalf of appellant jeremy churchill the issue in this case is whether the vermont state police have had reasonable suspicion to believe that my client germy churchill had burglarized a residence and bridger road in vermont even in the absence of evidence placing him at or around the burglarized house at the time of the burglary when trooper phelps away from it and he was seen going towards the government argues that he was seen over a mile away there is a lack of evidence in his lack of reasonable basis for thinking that the jeremy there was not a reasonable basis your honor because the description in that case with a vague description it was a description of a gaunt white male dark hair and shadow we face gaunt white males common  confirmed by the trooper seeing a truck with with this jeremy in it with a woman in it all of which matched the same description eighteen miles away your honor the trooper phelps didn't see jeremy churchill until eighteen miles away it's true that the individual described by earl baum did have that for he introduced himself by the name of jeremy but otherwise the description was vague and even though that st name matches the fact that thought of germany churchill who lived one thousand miles away that is not reasonable suspicion given the vagueness of the description again gaunt white male dark hair shadowy face the description of the truck itself was vang it was a dark described as a jarkko up truck older it's true he was seen driving a dark pickup truck older model but again pickup trucks are common in vermont a dark model older model is certainly not descriptive enough and certainly not specific enough to constitute reasonable suspicion but even if we assume that there was reasonable suspicion that the jeremy scene outside the churchill let's assume that for the moment we still don't have a geographic and temporal proximity to the burglary because the burglary was a mile away over a mile away at the brazier residence driving towards it he was seen which was to the right that's the direction the dirt road continued rather than to the left which is where the paved road the more main page road of town hill road was located so there is nothing particularly suspicious about him heads the person in the house and specifically told told him if you're looking for fuel heads you go on that way and turn right and you'll find few lads there and he goes the other way so he was acting suspicious in that he had knocked on the door but walking away as soon as the realized that somebody was home that's a misreading of the record your honor the record contradicts that when phelps testified or obama said was not that as soon as he opened the door this individual started walking away instead he testified that somebody knocked on the girl door or obama was upstairs it took him a while to get downstairs by the time he opened the door the individual was already walking away he turned and introduced himself and said my name is jeremy i'm looking for some fiddleheads so that the district court misread the record on that issue and said that no he turned as soon as somebody came to the door that's just that's contradict the record and that's clearly erroneous regarding the fact that he turned right instead of left as directed by earle bomb that's that's not particularly suspicious anybody arriving there looking for fiddleheads would be suspicious  that that's a main road there's fields on either side that's right well that's true but the more the the the more well trafficked road at that point is a town hill road somebody turning onto or which has trees and streams on the other side that would seem like a more likely place to find the fiddleheads so again the government tries his mission we're not talking about proof beyond reasonable correct correct i recognize that it's a fairly low standard but we don't even meet that standard in this case of reasonable suspicion there are alternate possibilities it may even be more likely even the in the reasonable suspicion is just reasonable suspicion i recognize but in this case we still don't have the geographic and temporal proximity i see i see i have more time in this case your honor if we compare this to cases of the government has cited as an example we see that we don't again have the sort of geographic and temporal proximity that the court looks for for example in the compton case which is the border checkpoint case that the government relies on fairly heavily in that case somebody was enough to say i know an individual named jeremy that matches this description and the only way in your scheme that there would be reason suspicion is if you happened to see the jeremy that he knew in the immediate vicinity of the burglary if somebody did see him where you have i have a two part argument your honor st i don't think we have reasonable suspicion that the individual seen at their obama residence was jeremy churchill but even if we assume that that individual was jeremy churchill that's simply too far away from the brazier residence to constitute reasonable suspicion it's the way you say it's a mild but british road as it is i gather there's not much on it and he's home going in that direction and he's two minutes drive away it's a mile away he turns the truck in that direction and i just to ask the temporal thing is you know even if he had seen if even if he'd been seen on the doorstep we would know what time of day the burglary occurred so it might have been that time he was drunk he was two minutes away by car from her house and driving in the direction of her even together with the other evidence your honor i particularly looking at the other cases where the the government relies upon the court has looked for a closer link in terms of temporal and geographic location we had that for example in the compton case we had that in the baling case the bailey case says that people who matched to a general description were seen coming directly from a house that was suspected to have drugs in it so we had a  geographic connection we simply don't have that here are i see my time is up thank you my name is john bush i represent the united states on the supreme this court should affirmed judge crawford's decision based on the totality of the circumstances were there was reasonable suspicion for the for much state trooper to investigate germy churchill's role in this burglary that happened on the same day the reasonable suspicion was based on specific and articulable facts including reliable and corroborated statements from civilian witnesses as well as churchill's suspicious conduct at the earldom residence  mile away from where the burglary took place the faxes found by judge crawford included that the burglary took place while nancy breezer was at work when she returned home around four pm that day she found her house burglarized in her medicine cabinet ransacked after that the trooper went to bombs residence about a mile south on greasier road talk to earl bomb or a bomb told him in this is found by judge crawford in his factual findings that obama saw a man  the trooper supports that it took him some time to get down what the trooper said during the suppression hearing was that he had been here and not going to store he was up stairs in his residence working heard a knock on the door came downstairs to see a male on his porch walking back to the truck that was parked in his driveway so i don't think it was clear here for judge crawford to find that or a bomb saw him at the front door of his house who walked away as our obama approached  in that short period of time is that the person jeremy who knocked on the door didn't need to wait until the door was opened to know that there was somebody home because the person was coming downstairs you make noise when you come downstairs i don't know whether there was and he window in the door or the permitted seeing in it somebody was in there with the impression that the trooper got from the description of the owner of the house was that that the person on realizing that someone was home was leaving rather than it's waiting to talk to us that's correct that was the the inference that the trooper drew and i will know as a matter of law even if there was an innocent explanation for this conduct even if the trooper early even if the man matching the description of jeremy churchill had truly been thought nobody was home and was walking away that innocent explanation can still factor into the reasonable suspicion analysis and  as it did here for the trooper another factor that wasn't mentioned in the in the or human of your adversary was the was the relevance of the ransacking of the medical of the medicine cabinet with respect to the state trooper's awareness  that the jeremy he knew was one who had drug drug addiction problems that's correct and that was another factor that was important to the trooper the trooper had a long and direct history with this man jeremy church well he knew that mr churchill was a drug user he knew that mr churchill had been involved in property crimes and just two months earlier he had pulled mr churchill over for speeding at the intersection of brazier road and town hill road practically right where the facts of this case derive from i one mile from the scene of the burglary it's that he disregarded obama's directions to the fiddlehead field and turned right out of the driveway in disregard of the directions and drove toward the scene of the burglary so he's less than a mile away physical geographic proximity is not the eighty miles away where mr churchill's ultimately encounter but the fact that a man but you actually lived a distance away from here that's correct yes he lived in the town of cabot which was some approximately twenty miles away or so but the man matching churchill's description and i submit is a quite a good description in fact judge crawford described it as a surprisingly apt description and the court has it in the record at page thirty five but that man jeremy churchill was a mile from less than a mile since he was driving in the direction of the burglar and that's the relevant physical proximity question here not where he's alternately pulled over so it's not just the it's not just the the resemblance of truth to the description the man gave but there's also the correspondence of the description of the truck and the woman in the truck and all those factors come into play and we should be hesitant to engage in a divide and conquer analysis on this point focusing too heavily on geographic or temporal proximity it's certainly a tally of the circumstances argument and the truck is another factor  obama described it to the trooper as a late model dark pickup truck when the trooper pulled church over later that evening church and was driving a two thousand and two black dodge pickup truck or a bomb had also mention that there was a woman in the truck and person turning to leave as he came to the door that was not his testimony his testimony is a joint appendix page thirty nine and two quote it's that paul indicated that earlier in the day he heard a knock on the door he was up stairs in his residence working heard a knock on the door came downstairs to see a man on the porch walking back to the truck that was parked in his driveway that person introduced himsel jeremy so it was the courts and the government's inference that this person was turning in response to hearing perhaps some footsteps or seeing somebody come from come down from upstairs but that was not what the trooper said was his inference so i think we have to be clear about what's in the record and what inference of the court and what inference the government has drawn and i don't think the court's inference is supported by the record secondly regarding the medicine cabinet issue that you're on to raise it's true that the medicine cabinet was ransacked that is true in my experience in most burglaries and the reason is not only because eighty five percent of