the legitimate evidence in this case should be reversed contrary to the appellate court majority's analysis all of the facts and circumstances confronting officer and detective johnson in this case justified every step of their johnson were working routine patrol in east hazel crest illinois and they went to the super eight motel there because they regularly patrol the motel parking lot for parties and things of that nature now this hotel parking lot had two entrances had a south entrance and a west entrance when the officers arrived there they could not access the parking lot through the south entrance because defendants car was blocking therefore the officers had to drive all the way around the motel building to access the parking lot through the west side and when they did defendants car was still blocking the south entrance the officers waited a little while longer and after defendants are still hadn't moved after several minutes they decided to approach to find out why they drove their car toward defendant and parked at nearby and approached defendants car on foot officer stood at the driver side of defendant's car and detective johnson stood at the passenger side defend car contained three people at this time defendant was in the driver's seat there was a front seat passenger and there was also a person in the rear passenger seat and this person had just come from the area of the motel in the area of the motel was about fifty to one hundred feet away from where defendant's car was parked at this time it was about eight forty five at night it was dusk there was nobody else in the immediate vicinity either on foot or in a car and defendant's car engine was running now officer a what he was doing and defendant said that he was waiting there to pick someone up in just as the officer or excuse me just as defendant said this detective johnson motioned to after officer and told him that there was a plastic bag sticking up out of the center console  round he testified that it was a three inch bullet it was the largest get ever seen and that it almost looked like a rifle rounds after the officer saw this pistol round he asked everybody to exit the car which they all if it sees me and they were all handcuffed and placed at the front of defendant's car officer then went to rectally to the center console grab that plastic bag and in it he found not only the bullet he had seen most standing outside of the car  additional identical y pistol rounds and officer ellicott testified at the suppression hearing that they were four fifty four caliber ammunition now that he is found by a bag of why the ammunition five live rounds officer johnson frist to find it in his passengers and during the pat down search of defendant he felt a similar type bullet in defendant's outer front pants pocket upon discovery of this live loose round and defendant's pocket and to find it was the driver in this case would be the fact that a wife around was seen inside the center console of a car that was running can change three people which outnumbered the officers at a time when the car was had been blocking the parking lot entrance for several minutes but the bullet aren't contraband they're not contraband per se however there is no rule that something that's not contraband per se can give rise to a reasonable suspicion that  concerned for their safety and all of their actions reflected a concern for their safety and based on this life coupled with the all of the facts and circumstances in this case which included three people in a running car with a bullet sticking out of the out of the consul an officer could reasonably suspect that any one of those individuals might be armed or that they may have immediate access to a firearm in the car and it would behoove them at that time to take protective measures to maintain the status quo so that they could then investigate the reasonable suspicion based on the bullet coupled with all that of the circumstances that some sort of criminal activity was so  for a weapon that would be immediate that could be immediate softly accessible to any of the occupants of the car after they were out of the car handcuffed that's correct your honor now additionally we would maintain that there was also probable cause at the time that the officers looked in the car to look for evidence of a crime that perps look for that there was probable cause that there may be some sort of contraband in the car at that of the same caliber on the person of the driver and at that point with multiple identical bullets from from different locations and officer there is of a fair probability that evidence a weapons offense could be found in the car however this that the officers looking in the car limited to those areas where a weapon could be concealed was fully justified under a terry stop was there any basis of a terrorist is investigative and when there are specific and articulable facts that lead the officer to believe that some crime may be occurring it's incumbent on them to bust again a bullet may not be contraband per se but things that are contraband coupled with other things together with reasonable inferences drawn there their problem that police officers aren't officers are entitle to make could lead an officer to reasonably believe that some crime may be committed and that officer safety is in danger the whole premise and terry was that the officers viewed multiple ads none of which in and of themselves were illegal but together he had the officer some sort of reasonable suspicion and again and wardlow the officer saw a defendant running a high crime area when he saw the police it's not a crime to be in a high crime area and it's not necessarily legal to run when you see the police that these two factors t potentially ambiguous factors put together a rise to the officer's reasonable suspicion and they're not required to stand by if there's an innocent explanation for what's going on when the officer saw the bullet in the context of the circumstances of this case it just it would be unreasonable for them to stand by and investigate standing outside of the car and inquiring whether it's about an f y d card whether they have a gun and whether it's likely because at that point the seeing the bullet the officer could reasonably suspect that there may be a firearm in the car and that the officers had ordered everybody out of the car for safety and the trial court at the initial suppression hearing even went so far as to the back seat of a locked police car and that the officers were not justified in then searching the car because there was no reasonable expectation that evidence of driving on a suspended would be found in his car and additionally that to find it was handcuffed in the back of a locked police car on his way to the police station and there is no concern that he was going to access the car and obtain a weapon that could be used against the officers now in unlike the concern that in one of the could access the car wasn't a lay by the fact that they were in handcuffs because if probable cause did not develop outside of the car the defendant in the passengers would have been permitted to reenter the car and then would have had access to that fire honour's this case presents first precisely the type of scenario that harry or had in mind when it carved out an exception to the for the moment war requirement when an officer needs to take protective measures to neutralize realistic threats of violence close to them when they're investigating criminal activity that the officers actions in this case were fully based on their concern for safety and every act that they took fully reflects their safety concerns and they did no more there was nothing very in this case to ensure their safety every stop of their investigation was reasonable it was justified by the facts as the incrementally develops and they fully comported with  it was a pistol bullet that observation was made after the recovery of the weapon officer all card specifically indicated that when he first observed this character age it was a three inches long and he believed it to be a rifle bullet period i just wanted to clarify the record that regard i indicated in my  of the testimony it was referred to as a pistol round but that obviously was deduced after the firearm was recovered and found to be a four fifty four caliber weapon revolver but officer al indicated initially that what appeared to be a rifle definitely in the r initially yes and that's the crucial part of the the case is what what the officers perceived initially with the first cat with the defendant  i think the state misplaces their emphasis on the bullet and the bullet that was recovered from the vehicle rather than the true circumstance that they should be looking at the surrounding circumstances around the bullets in these circumstances as i indicated in my brief are absolutely ben i think you have a car part waiting for an individual the police observe an individual exit the mall tell coming to the rear seat of the vehicle there's never been any testimony of any furtive conduct as the officers approached the vehicle there was no leaning bending anything that would give rise to suspicion of any criminal activity as a matter of fact the kids that party there in the hotels this is quite different from all the other cases in the legion of cases that this state has cited usually in a terr situation there has to be criminal activity afoot if this motel buy based on their experience in the parking lot is subject to narcotics dealing maybe it's a brothel convention as it is the police officers approached the vehicle again no furtive conduct there is no criminal activity officer alcott was specifically yes was there any criminal activity of any nature answer no the only thing you observed was this rifle bullet now what should he do with that point in time there's no import to the fact that they were blocking the entrance to turn i guess for the right because the left side was being blocked i mean they could have blown their horn or whatever but they chose to do their round and then come around and look at the vehicle and the explanation is simple they were waiting for somebody to exit the hotel and during their approach to their vehicle an individual did in fact leave the hotel and enter the vehicle at the re seat a reasonable explanation of the facts why they are there why they continued twenty other vehicles they asked for the explanation i don't know but they have a full right to do s now that question the painting on the circumstances could be asked that anything reasonably if these officers were some sort of fear rally i don't know because you're not in a high crime area they're not in in an area of of whatever you know suspicious criminal activity find yes the individuals from my protection please step out of the car their society even in this completely benign situation but let's be reasonable what do they do they did not only order at what i would say  as a drunk driving case for your own for my own protection please stop the fine but the order of people maybe we should have a distinction to order people out of the vehicle is a different occupants are allowed to reenter the vehicle they may have access to the lawn case the factual situation is nowhere near this situation this situation  daylight dos in in in law on it's the officers are there at midnight they encounter a vehicle committing traffic violations running of the road and then their initial inquiry with respect to the driver is like the driver is unable to respond seems to be under the influence of  something they speculate i guess on their paddocks and he's walking back to his vehicle with the door open and there's a huge hunting knife laying there i think the facts are totally different why didn't they ask all right there is anybody have a enough for id card that's the key here there's nothing illegal about the immunization so after they were so you agree that the assume his car for the purposes of argument is read a roll mart parking lot at eight thirty rather then of the motel eight in east asia will crush you have three individuals in the car blocking something of a parking space an officer comes to enquire observes ammunition in the vehicle well that could have been just purchased at the wal mart was just purchased simply not what let's say let's say you were with all the individuals and you were shooting and you have well it's all over the car and you want to buy some more for one of the individuals that right under terry or mother car happen down they find another bullet that's fine you tell us that's fine ok so now they have more than one bullet and they go into the car feet were is once fear for their safety it's a simple question maybe search my client and recover is while it and see if he has enough for id card are we going to be search the car and all the yes of course she's under arrest you must possess a valid f or id card on your person period at home doesn't do any good you under arrest right now right so there's no calling there's no doing anything you don't have it on your person you're on her the laws are very clear in their regard there's no fear for officer safety of letting these i think it is those go back to the core i think it's it lessens it that is he the two officers wearing bulletproof vests fully armed one i one side of the vehicle want to any other observe a rifle round just a casual inspection of the vehicle would would indicate that there was a presence of a right would be more consistent so it lessens the the danger to the officer in my hand and that's why i'm f justifies that criminal activity no state police officer stops you for speeding you're going hunting you have the ammunition in the car what's he supposed to do immediately order you out of the car and h there had been a question relating to afford care and let's just say even the defendant says here is the forty current yes does at that point in every instance negate the fact that th officer might still fear for his safety yeah i saw the boy laying in the car i felt there was one on his person i didn't want to let this guy reenter the car ford carter not legal legal ammunition or not i was worried that this guy  that's a very interesting point the point being is you have to look at the totality of the circumstances and where it is you're in a high crime area you're familiar with it you're in front of a dull house and you see that car and even all ask permission to search but just felt hand coffee with the front of the vehicle and immediately where there's a little there's a there's a little more than that right there is the scene the boat loose in the car there's the pat down the justice tires talk about that produces another bullet i mean can't the officer say in these type of circumstances i was worried about my safety there's there's more there than just the fact that he had  e if you had fifteen bullets but if you were wearing a bandolier there's nothing illegal about that well that's the question the question is if there's nothing illegal about the we yeah in michigan the law and of course here's a guy that at midnight runs off the road and is walking toward the open driver's side door with a weapon and on the floor be afraid of has expired thank you thank you approximately three inches long it was a pistol round it was the largest pistol run he'd ever seen and that it almost looked like a rifle round later on redirect examination he did agree  with defense counsel's representation that it appeared like a rifle round however he testified specifically that this was a pistol round the largest one he had ever seen and his actions upon seeing this pistol round fully reflected his concern that it was indeed a pistol round if it his actions did not reflect that he was looking for a hunting rifle in this case defendant's theory in this case does not have support in the fourth amendment under his defendant's theory an officer would be required to identify a crime and have evidence to support every element of that crime in order to effectuate a terr stop terry does not require this level of specificity and probable cause for that matter under defendant's theory they simply asking this court to create a high in reasonable suspicion suspicion standard that sounds quite similar to proof beyond a reasonable doubt again the circumstances of this case suggested to the officers that this live round in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case  were objectively reasonable officer to suspect that some sort of criminal behavior was occurring an officer does not need to know what crime is occurring and it does not need to prove possible from it of defense to the crime that could be occurring in the officer doesn't need to  yet course of the officers investigation needs to be reasonable and reasonableness does not necessarily entail a conversation and even if a cover station doesn't  occur it doesn't mean that what the officers did do was unreasonable they have discretion when they conduct terry stops there's no script that they have to follow and in this case the investigation they conducted fully reflected their concern for safety and was responsive to the escalating circumstances is a presented themselves every stop the officers took was fully in proportion to the facts as they played out before the officers can't conduct a full blown search of the car and that's clearly not what the officers did in this case but under the circumstances and terry were the basis of the search is concerned for officer safety that there may be a firearm somewhere in the passenger compartment of the car to which the defendant or his two passengers can mediately access if returned to the car makes this case a very different situation because of probable cause did not develop those defined in the passengers had every expectation to believe that they would well point in this case your honor unlike in ghana is there is an actual nexus here between why the officers are even looking in the car in this case they were concerned for their safety and they were concerned about a firearm so therefore they went to rectally to where a firearm might be concealed and however right they testified that it almost looked like a rifle round and their actions reflect that they were looking for a firearm and not a hunting rifle at not in the situation your honor because what the handcuffing did it was just a brief temporary safeguard so that the officers could be safe and not even fear of being shot at while they investigated whether there might be a fire again clearly missing in ghana was a nexus between the why the defendant was arrested and the search of the car there's no reasonable expectation that evidence of driving a standard license is going to be found in a car in this case officers assume substantial risks when they confront police are front people seated in automobiles these encounters are part and parcel of almost every police officers job and it's not uncommon as was the case here for such an encounter rapidly escalate from one that's neutral to one that spells dangers due to the possibility of a firearm in the media area of the suspect even the wife has surrounded this case and all the surrounding circumstances the officers acted reasonably and all of their actions were fully in proportion to the facts as they played out before that when reflected their concern that there may be a pistol or a firearm in the car that could be used quickly and fatally against  the law enforcement conduct in this case was fully in proportion with the the demands of the situation as they developed and as they developed and there was no more than a slight incursion into the defendant's fourth amendment interest in this case therefore again your honors for the