seizure here we have a man or woman sitting in a parked car going to quieten to say it's about a night man a woman a talking you're not interacting with anyone or anything outside of the car and all of a sudden two police car swooping simultaneously the top of gone from enjoying quiet moment together to being the targets of an obviously targeted police action the police cruisers parked perpendicular to the couple's car restricting their abili simply drive away and end the interaction and then both car up police cars turn on their spotlights which are police tools used in parks a temporary blind temporarily blind the occupants of a vehicle and the police shine a spotlight into the car and into the eyes of the couple the officers then get out and start approaching the car now everyone's asking you to accept that a reasonable person sitting awash in the spotlights hemmed in by two police cars and realizing that this isn't any kind of random check or drive by that but according to police action would feel free to leave that's it's a no no reasonable person in that situation would think they could just you know turn on the nation and drive away and that's that's common think it's also supported by by case law both both parties cite the same standard from united states v washington which looks at whether the police outnumber the people being approached whether the police have visible weapons whether setting this reasonable suspicion that as the court knows can't be based on information that the officers don't have when they undertake the seizure and you to have the information can't be filled in after the fact so here the only information that the officers say that they have before undertaking the seizure was that there was a report of a green honda parked in a red zone in the vicinity of five a one east oxford street they don't have any of the other information that shows up in the recording of the call it's not transmitted to them so they they don't know anything about the the caller saying that he lived at the location that he knew that the card in blind to his neighbors that the caller seemed to have eyewitness knowledge of what was going on the car or that the caller left his name and telephone number was a nine one one call it actually your honor there's not a scrap of evidence that there was a nine one call the government repeatedly refers to it as in i went on call and invokes all the nine one one call cases but there's nothing in the record saying that it's a nine one one call no declaration calls of nine one one call no report calls a nine one one call and if you listen the recording itself they don't then the operator doesn't identify themselves as not one thousand and one that identify themselves and and i believe i knew someone called in and said that they had observed this car at night on this call the sac parked in a red zone yes and that's the that's it and it's so ethical the point the police get there you know parked you know and some distance behind us you see happening in other cases in a normal kind of inline fashion as opposed to perpendicular to him the men and just approach the car will with flashlights and looked down to see whether there was in  don't see a problem with that if they driven by the from the car and or the back of the car and just on kind of a sweep with their headlights to see if there was a red curve obviously there's no problem with that they're allowed to engage the problem here is that they seized before engaging oh they've gotten a report of illegal activity and they want up to the car and even if you're right that it's a seizure they were trying to determine what was going on i don't why is why does that violate terri how are the interests that underlie terr clearly erred i mean if if if that was the district court's finding out and so i don't have that right in front of me but it would be clear error in the sense of there's not a again not a scrap of evidence about it there's nothing in the record whatsoever that says nine one one call well the district court certainly made that finding it pitched twenty one of the excerpts of record so that i would be telling you that that's a clearly erroneous finding because it is it's not it's not supported  by the record there's just nothing in the record that that that supports that and i mean even to the extent that it is a nine one one call i mean we're just we're still talking about a situation in which like the nine one one call was an anonymous the person identified themselves they said they lived in in that called the sac they said they're going to gave the name to the operator from from the office perspective it certainly anonymous because they don't say that they don't they say specifically in the reports they don't find out who the person is until after the fact but does that does that make it an anonymous call in other words are you saying if the the operator not nine on if the operator had said we have a call from john smith he so it matters whether the officers knew the name of the person calling yes i mean it's the information that matters for a reason the suspicion is the information like about officers on the ground the collective knowledge the collective knowledge theory applies to a couple of different situations neither of which is present here you can have a team of officers working closely together so and then if they're in communication you assume that the information that one half the  others or you can have an officer who has all the information makes a reasonable suspicion determination and then broadcast that determination to someone else and ask them to act so that those are the two points places where it works here you're talking about  her parked in a red zone and was not known in that area and then the police officers arrive and see a green honda courier parked in the red zone so that doesn't  as if it's some huge parking street they see it in a called a sack wedge there in this very small area so it it certainly doesn't look like a normal parking area and they can't see what's behind it because the cars parked in front of their so they could have again they have driven around the front or driven around that and try to take a look at it and they've i mean whether they can see it or not the point is that they haven't they haven't verified it there's no ordinance or anything else that the government's put forward that  know a small spaces between driveways of less than can so that your brief argue anywhere that the district court supposedly clearly erred in finding that there was a nine one one call i'm not going to page one thousand year brief and you say nor can the government concoct reasonable suspicion by observing that the nine one one operator dispatcher knew what the officers did not did you raise this issue in your brief it we did not but and again i would i would just point to the the the nine one one call cases require  more it's these dangerous situations and not at most parking violation which is which is like another leave the most least dangerous situation imaginable in that situation that in a dangerous you know i dangerous ongoing situation maybe it makes sense to run out and act on the information without verifying this is a parking violation there answering twenty five minutes later they could have taken sweep and taken a look before seizing them and i see them almost  good morning your owners will wrongs on behalf of the united states they please the court i want to start first by addressing the defense counsel's point that there is no evidence in the record that there was a nine one one call first i direct the court's attention to the record at pa four in which in response to an argument from defense counsel below that the officers didn't know the curve was read the judge g concluded that they were dispatched there for that reason and that we are twenty one the district cour specifically said together with the other factors that there was a nine one one call reporting a suspicious vehicle matching the description and the location of defendant's car and then continued on and in response to the district court's point that the officers were dispatched there for that reason scuse me the that the reason being the red curb the fence counsel then agreed with the district court and argued that the officers needed to conduct additional investigation not that the officers didn't know that the call had been reported the a ninety one one and the other point that i dislike to make about the nine hundred one call is i think that's a little bit beside the point because whether it was reported the a nine one one or simply some other type of call to the police the thrust of the authority on anonymous tips in this context has to do with whether the officers on the scene know that that information is easily corroborated or can be determined with it easy investigation and so in this context even assuming that the officers believed it had just been reported merely by telephone for example rather than nine one one they also had some additional facts for example th of saying that the car wasn't known to the area and then the specific address provided by the reporting party and so in the united states versus palos i think was palos martinez this court indicated that it's really the thrust of the issue about whether that anonymous tip is reliable relates to whether the officer could reasonably conclude that the informants identity can be determined with only a small amount of investigation and then one other point i just want to say in response to defense counsel for the record at yard thirty nine there's no evidence that the spotlights were shined into the eyes of the occupants in this case in fact your thirty nine the police report into one of the officers indicates that he illuminated his spotlight to light the inside of the vehicle and in washington this court held on similar facts where an officer was a woman in the inside of a vehicle using a flashlight that that that the seizure in that particular case did not begin at that moment and then that piece involved two patrol cars coming up at night in a cul de sac and with a spotlight no it's not you're all right that case involved a single officer approaching a car with a flashlight but i would direct the court's attention also to united states versus chan jimenez in which a police car actually pulled up behind a stopped car activated not only not only lights but i believe the blue and red emergency flashing lights and the court in that in the circuit this circuit in that case also indicated that the seizure did not occur at the moment that the red and blue lights were flashing and i think that depended in part because on the fact that the car was already stopped and so in this case the car was already stopped and parked when the officers approached and i know that defense counsel articulated the standard for reasonable suspicion as whether he the occupants of the car would have felt free to leave but i really think the more appropriate cars came and blocked and no your honor i don't i don't think so under this this court's precedent i don't think that he was seized at that moment and i would respectfully disagree with the court's characterization as as them having walked in the park perpendicularly around his car his car so that i mean if he if they were parked there he couldn't move his car out pretty well your honor i think the record actually indicates that he was parked at the a that according to the officers declarations they did both say perpendicular but both police reports also stated that the officers parts of behind and those two things and in my view are not mutually exclusive and so i think  of course the declarations themselves so the police report that would be at the are thirty nine officer rawest stated that i parked my police vehicle behind the acura and then police report for officer pace you are forty six upon our arrival we have served defendants vehicle at the end of the cold the sac facing south and we proceeded to park our vehicles behind it and then the officers declarations at e sixty one to sixty six e r sixty two for officer pace he indicated that he parked perpendicular and officer riah we are fifty five also indicated that he parked perpendicular counsel even if we would say we accept what you just read as the facts hypothetically if in response to that the defendant had just simply driven away wouldn't the government be arguing that that in itself  was enough ground to then affect the terry stop even if it had occurred prior to that i think your honor if that had happened the argument in this case would would involve whether that flight was provoked or unprovoked and as that as your hon of sir that there are there are there is a lot of authority holding that mirror flight from officers can give rise to reasonable suspicion but in this case if the defendant rather than making furtive movements and apparently concealing a handgun on the floor board had simply rolled down the window and says and ordered to said to the officer through the open window i can i help you i'd like to leave then he would have been free to leave at that point but but that's not what happened we don't need to decide that question is not correct that's correct your honor you don't because the district court also concluded i believe that you are twenty one i think that that factual finding that which was even if the perceived even if the officers  didn't perceive the parking violation at the moment that they arrived there were other facts in the record that had already provided reasonable suspicion to effectuate this stuff through the threat that the  government prepared you know the office there are those with a lawyer there they're careful sworn testimony as opposed to report if we were having hearing and i was trying to impeach them with the report doesn't make any sense for both of them to park perpendicular behind the car it  doesn't and that was that was not the point i was going to make the i don't know how the second car would find it spotlight at that point because it would be shining through the first first car so i think perpendicular in the t shape is is really what makes sense  the record here and he i don't know how much the time to dig into this but just in terms of the district court's ruling the district court seems to be focused on the second stop the hands on the to them which is after the hands going we'll the perception of nervousness happens once officer rider reaches the car in the sand which again is after the hand movements so the district court's ruling on facts here that the officers just just plain