eight dash thirteen fifty seven which i cite in my brief the border patrol has the authority within a reasonable distance from the border to enter a bus or a train someone or stop someone on a highway that isn't even connected to the border it is parallel to the border it never intersects the border but in a prior case the officer was driving you think going the other way and circumstances end up toward you know work were given it was late at night these people are transients in appearance and they could the police can come up and certainly do a consensual encounter but we're contesting that this is more of an investigative stop as opposed to a consensual encounter but getting back to my point that i made a sanchez the road runs east and west just like the in track and even though it's within twenty miles of the border it is twenty miles continuously along the border and so there's no connection there's no reasonable suspicion why the officer should even be that they have the station on the train because there's i think about detroit with it which is tech essentially within one hundred miles of the canadian border can patrol border any trains within one hundred miles of the border in detroit simply a reasonable reason to be on the train or a reason to stop the that's the passenger or the car and and so that you know our contention is you should have even they should have been allowed to simply sit on a train every day and go through the train and stop people and talk to people and as agents jensen says in my brief i think on x or page eleven or twelve and simply you know no no i know the the issue i think it is is germane to this particular case these people are simply going on in the amtrak train during a fifteen minute stuff and talking to people randomly just like people but the impetus of wizened patrol officer was on the train but you're saying you don't even want to be on there even though anyone could be on the train well right i mean they're on the train to do investigations to bust people for whether be a pal and believed he was not free to ignore the agent's questions i think it's a it matters whether a reasonable person would believe he was unable to ignore the agents  reasonable person would not have felt that they could they could not ignore the agent in other words the agent on the record is clear that the agents took to the side of the defendant that the the dependent was sitting at the front part of the training he could have walked out the agents also testified that based upon their training at you know united states border patrol academy as well as their their individual practices that it was their practice to not to stop somebody if they decided they didn't want to engage in conversation with the age thirteen fifty seven that he was doing so only doing only that which the law provided him to do so in this particular case the court did make a finding that the defendant was not but you might not be free don't leave some point prior to being under arrest to right right and i think that's a good point but in this particular case again the officer is based upon their training to practice both and both officers testified  go i would also point out in this case the defendant's own testimony which as found in the record indicates that he did not make any attempt to leave and also fact when he was asked on dire that first that the defendant stated that he was not intimidated by the uniform but rather he was intimidated by the fact that if he were caught that he would be sent back to mexico question so you were afraid of the consequences you were not afraid of the agent correct ye to talk to somebody if they decide not to speak to them unless there's some other indication that that they're being held there or that the first response was mandatory the court the courts have said you know formally that you know it's something that we always you know we i don't know that it's much but i know the cases talk about it and we'll talk about in this case and the adoption seems to be very good anyway just  talked about concerning whether he was free to leave or not because something gets back to my issue with the fact that the judge was was tried to make it which doesn't explore the interesting gray area of reasonable suspicion that we're going to private parts and army dispatchers explores which are cases after that which talks about the reasonable suspicion so he felt that it wasn't even important to discuss that they were