will call the st case please the police officers to hold you in the hold you and tell you you're not free to leave given the miranda warnings stop with your st point there when the officer stranger's and attempt to prevent him from leaving how is that i'm just well i don't know that that i don't know that that is a correct statement of fact i think officer higgins testimony is unreliable incredible and inconsistent let's honor but it partner there's nothing you contradict it well no deposition testimony did contradict it there's something in the record to contradict it but the facts of the situation is rickey henderson disappeared he was served through the secretary of state so are you to take the police officers were one hundred percent and if you do you have to look you have to look at the inconsistency is that he hasn't it's testimony to the it was you it is there a deposition from mr anderson that says he wasn't i wasn't well the police officers that they don't brag to police officers that he grabbed at anderson he is there anything that mr anderson says he's young he's he and the other officer or the only two people there and there are people other people in the car anybody else offer any officer can we just take these and separate periods of time there's this initial traffic stop stops a car passengers in the car are stopped as much as the driver of the car for a traffic violation that's clear  i don't i don't think it was a disputed fact i think it's a fact that should be decided by the trier of fact the jury and his testimony should be taken way it is unless you're allowed to cross examine ok well let's go back to the police officer speak what what the records show what was said to anderson by any police officer at the time of the stop was there any worse exchange i don't think there was any words there's a a stranger to the police but a friend happens of the right there when you're pulled over a friend your police officers talk to the driver friend gets in the car  actually one of the difficulties i think with this record is that the car itself is no there's there's i don't think there's a thing it indicates the car itself if it was if that there's an officer on either side of the car  there's two officers so there's not an officer standing in front of the car making telling you no stopping it from moving with their officers on either side of the car so even if it's to know her quarter cart really does make a difference because the officers are standing there and anybody who tried to for example escape on foot could be easily stop prevented by the officer by just stopping the car door from opening her or actually physically grabbing the person trying to escape so if you st of all starting with the supreme court cases u s supreme court cases that say when a car is stopped the passengers are stopped and for all intents and purposes they're all detained until they're let go and no one has the right to sleep and part of that is for officer safety so if starting from that if anderson was properly detained at the point the car was stopped and he was a passenger in the car then you have to believe he had no right to leap over the front seat and take away with that the car was stopped and the passengers and the driver they were all stopped there was a lawful reason to stop it and so you're telling us that you still don't believe that anderson was escaping prison name having trouble understanding that logic back seat they don't even talk about leaving the keys in the car whether the car was running in the reese case the police officer actually admitted that he left the keys running and violators on procedure and there was no cage in the back i'm saying the guy's got them i up a lousy story they made a terrible story up and whatever they say is incredible what happened what it what they hit what they said in there why would someone who's has an unregistered gun why would they not charge that person let him go the person who was arrested  so if there's a gun in the car and then register gun you don't get the police don't have a right to charge anybody i don't believe that it's that that is the way the world works and i don't think that the the facts what they say  credible just like officer higgins who realigned says you can't trust the citizen who described the police the police chase that was going on the street says you can't believe this guy why should the court believe a police officer when prison that's a that's a in the court looks for that definition looks at who are custody now in what way i mean you don't you don't you agree that there's no outside the coward poured into their story looking at the other people in the pit in the car and they didn't even notice them until they allegedly left the one guy left the scene i didn't know what happened to the other guy in the car where did they don't even account for him and the police reports of the testimony with the other guy in the back seat who wasn't even who wasn't even this mystery where right now the store mr ware was driving that fitch was driving the guys in the in the car when it crashed and i anything else well i think the case is that the court the case the court relied on the states with the face after trial there were the people admitted they were in the car they admitted they were in custody and  do you think that the two backseat passengers claimed into this car after crashed into the car that mr johnson was in how they get there how how did they get there i don't know i don't even know what happened at the scene i don't believe the what the i don't believe what the police officer said i think it's incredible that two large men jumped into the front seat of a small fort a two door sedan and jumped in the car and drove away while they were standing and i just can't police officer said but their stories are inconsistent and incredible the train didn't even make the arrest somebody else filled out the police report they did this is all this is all hearsay they didn't remember half the things that were there were going separation said he thought that there was the police truck was traveling at forty five to fifty miles an hour but and he was the driver was a separate car but he wasn't there for the original starting point of this whole discussion which is people were were not to be found we serve the rickey henderson through the secretary of state through special order process we can find them so there's nothing i can do if i can't find people who are who are not bind to arrest somebody they would be hearing by the court there'd be a probable cause hearing in the court with the term and whether or not the police officer gave probable cause but in this particular in this particular case his credibility whether they have probable police and the two officers conducting the stop had to either so you know you are in custody when a police stops the car in europe passenger in the car are you in custody we believe so i mean the u s supreme court stated that amendment yes you know because they are because no reasonable person in that situation would feel free to leave in a way this is a pastor in the back seat the police officer that never said a word to mr henderson while they and the court in reason made clear that it's there in order for a person to be in custody a formal arrest or imprisonment is not required and of course in the reese case there was you know somebody you know just put into the back of a police car without hand held formal arrest is different than having your freedom controlled or limited so again how is a passenger in a should be clear that everybody in the state of illinois has a passenger car is a prisoner that's what you're saying you know prisoner within the toward immunity act has a very broad definition of being custody now they're not formally imprisoned but the court in re t that you know cus custody which is like a prisoner in the tour you know the act is tied to is a very broad and that's the reason they do that in that case the word prisoner does have certain meaning and they're trying to determine prisoner you can't just say they were prisoner has no meaning whatsoever when in that case was he in custody in a police shooting in a police car ok that's a lot different than every individual who's a past i will say in this case although i do actually don't think you need to go quite that far because in this case there was more than that you know sanderson was in the back seat of the car and officer higgins when he noticed him trying to get from the backseat into difference here the car physically comes up so that right there we know there had been no communications before and so and then the visual would that no they're not free to leave i mean while again we have to find that this individual is in custody under chose to define a prisoner as a person held in custody the supreme court has stated unequivocally that the legislature if they had meant something narrower like formal arrest or imprisonment they would have used those words it's been an ovary eight years since that's not the issue the issues that he was the the issue is custody and how and whether as you would agree is to be me i think custody in terms of if it's you know a person is not free to leave in that sense caesar and custody are the same would you under under united states versus franklin supreme court home but there is a if you believe that a person who is a passenger in a car that is stopped is cesar in custody however fleeting while the officer does whatever he's going to do for a lot of the cases talk about officer safety but but they also talk about trying to escape at that point create but the fact that you have been detained and now you are escaping that  bet point can believe that you are an escape in prison or because you have no right to leave and so the logic of it is such with officer safety the officers have a right to check out everybody who's in a car to make sure they're not go killed and the nd thing is once you decide as a passenger you're going to run run for it the officers then have an object of reason to believe that you you knew you shouldn't have and that you  now created the situation where you're a person correct even if mr anderson had open the door and tried to casually walk away i mean it's almost certain that the officers would have stopped him and that point you know if you would have thought that he was free to leave you know that would have been cleared up by that in this case he jumped into the front seat tried to drive away indicating that from the beginning he did think he was free to leave but if there were any ambiguity on that point when officer it's reached out and tried to grab him it was it was clear that he was not and you know the car was under the officers control there was no no no one was free to take the car at that point but there are different in the work custody of the th amendment in the th amendment i don't believe so so your position is that of no difference between just in the th member of the th i'm not certain i don't think so but i don't think that it matters to this case because illinois general assembly you know they can saying that it was broad and i will note that the plaintiff has not argued that if you know the facts of the case are what the officers testified to that section forty one of six shouldn't apply here the distinction that he's drawn between this case  reads is that there was a trial in release which doesn't make a difference i mean that the standard there was you know were upheld judgment as a matter of law here we have summary judgment we have the officers testimony which i think the discussion person held in custody it's up to the courts to sort of determine the parameters of that illinois supreme court and reads didn't you know say it has to be for the member just was there some suspect and they think not before feeling with the individuals in front there is a continuum no i mean they stop the car they pull the car over the curb it they get out the the police get out of their car they just as the driver for his driver's license he doesn't have one they ask him to get out of the car and testimony that all this took a long time you know and it's certainly not necessary that anderson have been under you know suspicion or a bank use of any wrongdoing before he attempted to flee you know that's not a requirement for him to pain the only reason i'm saying that is because if the police got to the point where they said the two backseat guys get out of her you know and those two guys get up get out of the car and they say ok we're going to leave officers in the office you say fine and i've said they stop being prison more perfected by the officer as an act of did detaining miss records there was no question at that point that he was not free and he was because he responded why are you grabbing at me well we don't know that but in any event yes that's your position ok but i guess i don't the quote the court doesn't have to go as far as saying everybody you know in the back to the car is a prisoner a person additional fact here but again you know this is within the meaning of that's that's an issue for the general assembly it's and it's not a matter of saying that everyone in that in a car that's been stopped is you know a prisoner in the sense that they have their prison where white boy why not if they are a prisoner within the meaning of the toward a person in custody that's right that not every definition within within the toward immunity act but i guess what i'm what i'm trying to address is the concern that that that definition somehow has that it somehow matters outside application of the tour immunity so there's not a you know i get the sense just the timing might be concerned that that saying that someone is a prisoner by virtue of being in the backseat of a car you know carries some material to the issues here the gun the gun they did officers didn't testify that they saw the gun at the time that they stopped the car right it was found just outside the car but right you know that's all i just want to make it clear but mason's point is close to what we're trying but earlier officer safety a lot of these cases drill down on officer safety and what happens when an officer makes traffic stop and what the logical consequences of that traffic stop can be and one of those consequences is that all of the passengers are now being lawfully detained during the duration of at least a traffic stop so that the officers can at least check officer safety and that's one of the reasons we consider the passengers detained that's correct and that's exactly what the u s supreme court said and so they say they haven't already done it is irrelevant to whether or not that's right he had a right to detain all the passengers and in fact all the passengers that were detained at that point he never got charged for that so i think that leads to the intent he only got charges flee you know and looting did not get checked a traffic offenses he did not get charged with resisting arrest or any of that nature so i think that leads to the conclusion that he was in the rust every wasn't in custody or wasn't seized or whatever terminology and to give a broad meaning under the act and to allow police officers a pass on everything