but for whatever reason the trial court scene that the officers had never asked anything about why the defendant was there even though officer quite clearly testified that he had done so and that trial part of that he was only questioned about drugs which is no true case he was asked about why he was there which i think the defendant if greece did this a permissible subject question under circumstances where he is being detained  involvement in criminal activity so there is the type of criminal activity been investigated and the search warrant may be relevant to what the officers can do to investigate the defendant's complicity you're involved in criminal and there's just not you know i'm just assuming these normal would say all right and leave but instead of before you got to leave the officer says well why are you here i've got some questions for you why are you coming into this house because the questions about drugs and the requests for instance are not political to the test itself which is his complicity for a possible drug violation which doesn't really make sense because however the fact that he was invited inside or around the invitation because that was subject to dispute in the trial court based on the officers testimony saying he was not actually invited inside but i can see how that from the defense perspective it would appear so somebody so therefore there's no showing that any reasonable suspicion that may have existed would have dissipated by the time the officer requested his consent for a search and so i moved on to the final issue which is the application which is actually a novel application for and circumstances of what would be a brief detention or summers or brief detention under terry because here there is no showing of any sort of form or grass or beyond the concerns which gave rise to its rules so therefore in this circumstance aso the final reason is that the creating offense stands it's not testimonial so i mean if it's not covered by the fifth amendment privilege thank you council your orders if you support a count so the most important thing here is to start with the findings of fact the initial fighting effect by the court is that the court found that testimony defendant was under suspicion of criminal activity because he had walked into the residence where police were conducting an investigation he also put it another way defendant walked right into an alleged drug house without being invited in know the resident for the drug activity now this finding that the court has to pass the against the manifest weight of the evidence analysis and other words that's a pretty high bar we have to be able to say that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the court or i that now if you take the court's finding of fact that this was the situation created by officer watson then the basis for in the bathroom and of course said that the mere presence in the apartment during execution of a search warrant did not justifying destination similarly in a bar up when they're in a bar but the court determined that the stop now even if the court works suspect that the next step is that the state tries to argue that eliot which the woman was found in the apartment has no mention of nervous behavior on the part of the defendant i would point out that the timing of events is critical here first officer watson testified that they were actually why what his name was who he was what can make of that i don't know if there was testimony he asked why it was there was no testimony whatsoever that the police officers were dissatisfied of time there's nothing that i could find that indicated that one or the other of those took precedence the state indicated that there was no testimony that there was that th duration was such that in of itself it would exceed the skull and i'm not arguing that indeed i would i would argue that under summers technically i believe that they could have probably  on harass until the end of the search and then let him go i think there certainly precedent for back so those terms spoken for those terms i don't think apply it to ration doesn't apply it's the well number one the trial court found that when taking into account their circumstances surrounding the incident the conduct of the police would be a reasonable reasonable innocent person under identical circumstances to believe if your she was not was not free to decline officers request or otherwise terminate your counter over and over the state explicitly declined to challenge the trial court's factual finding that the defendant was and this is the word that  case that in this is not an absolute in general miranda has the tendency to apply in the context of  in the context of a police police station but it's certainly not always the case in this particular instance once they exceeded the scope of the terry stop in the summer investigation indicates that it giving a consent to search is not testimonial and therefore and therefore not not subject to the miranda considerations however if the court is what i'm saying about where that draws the line on that scope namely that the school ended when state showed no dissatisfaction with the response to questions as to identity and what he's doing there then the questions about the drugs cloak he explains that in his experience people sometimes will once if they're called to take it off to make it easier to fully well he's surrounded by two police officers there was a question by the state as to whether how can you possibly there away from being surrounded by two officers but that's not what the court found the court found that they were reasonably detaining guard it seems that officer wasit hasn't completely learned what the scope of wasn't the actual in the initial stopping the officer that was another officer was a guy it was a traffic stop and which hit in which there was a lot of questions about whether  stopping officer change a story a couple of times at one point she was saying that a headlight i mean a got the best ration like this out later on she said that she stopped him because the passenger wasn't very seat belt it turned out that when they stopped the car fair if they wanted to elicit testimony from officer watts wason to the extent were you satisfied with those answers they could easily have done so that was the state's burden and in this particular instance it would've been might have been able to legally push back the scope of the stocks in this case there's no such evidence that that's the case in fact the only conclusion that we can come to is they were perfectly satisfied they just wanted more take that in combination of the fact that they never even bothered to perform a pack down i think that again their index of suspicion regarding regarding this individual's danger to yeah yeah there was you are the mayor of us five forty four us ninety three we are in that particular instance it was kind of similar to this in some ways but in that particular instance the warrant was for weapons and evidence of gang gang involvement gang activity so that under those circumstances police treat you reasonably concerned about people on the premises during the search warrant posing a real threat pursuant to the findings of the court were created by the officer the officer testified that they watched him through the curtains window come up approach the house come up a walkway and ring the doorbell and immediately response he opened up the door actually he says that he was halfway down the sidewalk on one at one point but at another point what does actually say is i wait a few feet behind him turned and watched it and  a relatively short time within that time he was arrested by the time they'd searched his his his jacket on the left fully they have found something that's hundreds arrested so i really don't know how long he would have been had they not requested the search under summers i think it's pretty clear the fact that i suspect it might really depend on the facts of the case sensitivity of the activities of the officer i where such a situation might arise where they want to keep them just keep them they're told they finish their business but the last by questions that see the scope permissible by law under summer identity and purpose or if you did you must inferentially must have been satisfied and what you described as suspicious activity to me is meaningless i'm sipping a coke and looking around i look around to if a strange man let me onto the porch of a house tonight maybe i knew i conclude from that good stuff that should have been the end of you should be asked any further questions you had no reason to ask you to further questions why  who make conclusions about certain conduct his experience and sipping their own walking around means something whether it could mean something else or not it's not really important but there's also language about if the suspicious what you call  specific suspicious activity could include such a huge group of people most of whom might very well be innocent you don't extrapolate from that that