good morning please the court my name is paul so very appear on behalf of the government and we ask that this court reversed the decision below finding that there was not reasonable suspicion for the police to stop correct on the very same point yes in state court the test is a little different ok and i am who i did not study the state test but i my understanding is at least the reason whether or not there's reasonable suspicion under state law is measured from the time of pursuit or the command to stop so there's a very significant difference under state law so what is the it seems to me that maybe your best argument is that judge heard seem to take this from the perspective more from the perspective of of the defendant than of the government officers and the question is what could the governor or governor the what could the police police officers have reasonably believed as as this thing unfolded as i take it that that's your position that that is one of the most significant er anything about that or we you know are that the all three officers were vests and that they were marked police isn't that a contested fact though and there wasn't a hearing to resolve that as i read the record it seemed as if the government was asserting that the word police was prominently marked on the vest but that there was that that was contested as to whether or not the defendant would have or could have seen so that seems as if it would be something that should have been resolved at a hearing well there's no dispute the just indicated police i agree with your honor that there's nothing in the record or finally by the district court whether the word police was prominently displayed isn't that if that's important not so much from what the defendant may have seen or not seen but what the police could reasonably have expected the defendant to have seen and i so i mean it is i guess it is possible that if the officers are wearing police that they would expect that seed that under the circumstances but that would also have to do with the lighting when to certain degree you know the whole purpose but the problem is that if they thought if they could reasonably believe that he just thought it was they were a couple of thugs coming up and and trying to rip them off or trying to interfere then and that would be different than the circumstances that actually pertain it would be different and i would maintain that there was still reasonable suspicion to effect the stop what was that i mean why should spell it out well i'll say before i do and i'm and i will very shortly i just want to say that one of the other errors that the district court made in addition to failing to view via the circumstances through the eyes of the police is to acknowledge that a series of innocent acts even in of themselves when viewed through the eyes of police reasonable suspicion so the police find mr bell in a high any concededly high crime area approach a car that is stopped in the middle of an intersection and place his hands inside the car i didn't say my brief but reviewing the record it says repeatedly i don't know if that really makes a difference at that point the police already suspect that this could be a hand to hand drug transactions but they don't stop mr belin and the occupant of the car at that time was it reasonable suspicion in your view had it attached at that moment in other words you've got a high crime area stopped coat reaching hands into the car and experience that suggestive of a drug transaction are you done or do you have to actually get to the next step well i think i would say that's probably enough but it's then you know it may not be it was more there is more sense so mr bell according to the police interpretation of what occurs directs the car to a side street it's at that time that the police follow that car in essence to the side street when the police arrive they observe mr bell and the driver of the car outside of the car in their words huddled and looking at something in someone's hands you know with their heads down looking at their hands that i think your honor it's a lot to their original suspicion even before you get to the question of flight i would say that that is enough for the police to affect the terr so whether or not the word police was on the vest or not would be irrelevant under that i would say that yes but i then at that point  presumably the defendant bell sees sees that sees these people yes and and then starts walking away you know happily and the police one officer gets out of the car and commands him to stop and just says stop and that's when mr bell takes off running he subsequently tackled that's when under federal law of the seizure occurs when mr bell is handcuffed and lifted from the ground the pistol not no your honor in terms of finding the facts of what happened yes a fact yes but the second this case judge heard was going upon a record in the state court proceeding correct i think i think the plated set of facts i think judge heard took into account the record of the state court proceeding as well as the affidavits that were submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion to suppress he did conduct a hearing on an issue that's not before the court relates to a later statement but he determined that no further hearing was necessary in the government agreed that no hearing was necessary it was the government court my name is melissa toohey i'm with the office of the federal public defender appearing today on behalf of charles bell it's our position that this court should affirmed the district court's well reasoned suppression order that was based on undisputed facts that came from the government's own witnesses that there was not reasonable suspicion to seize mr bell as the district court correctly noted at the time that the officers decided to initiate the terry stop they had observed nothing more than a black male in a hooded sweatshirt approach a vehicle stopped in the intersection this all happened but he also reached into the car right so you've got hands reaching into the car correct however and then the car being directed to a two or more discrete location in the middle of  interesting well as i stated in my brief that the car was in the intersection and it looks like mr bell was actively getting the driver to move to a safer location on the side of the road rather a more secluded area which would add to the suspicion well i think that first of all i mean there are saying that they witnessed him approach the car and put his hands in the car and as judge or noted it was dark and they couldn't make out anything in his hands police do that was wrong here from your perspective they acted on a hunch it was an assumption they said that they believed there was some possible illegal activity possibly  from your perspective he was he was stopped based upon what you believe was insufficient probable reasonable suspicion yes what i'm wondering is why would we want to suppress this evidence anyway i mean what is there when we sanctioning in that the police is done here why would this be a sanction to the police that would warrant suppression because i'm like i'm thinking about the yes correct because first of all it's two people conversing on a public street at night they're lawfully in a loud section in a high crime area it's not often that you get can talk to people on a public street it's a high crime areas are filled with people that live there that conduct business eight forty five pm at night is not an unreasonable hour to know whether it's a residential area or an industrial area that is commonly used for that wasn't developed in the wreck that was not developed in the record do you think that if the word police had been prominently displayed on the vest and in the face of the police approaching the flight had occurred if that fact was established in the record would it change your view as to whether or not there was reasonable suspicion it wouldn't because there's well there's nothing in the record to support that mr bell saw that that there was lighting if the police believe that he's because in order under wardlow in mohammad in order for the flight to be a significant part of the reasonable suspicion analysis it has to be unprovoked and at in a reaction to noticed police presence which we don't have here what we're really we should be looking at and this is one of the problems with direct her we should looking through the lens of the police's perceptions not the defense so looking at it from the reasonable police officer with this training in its experience each having eight or nine years of experience they're acting on a hunch they don't have specific facts about a drug transaction occurring they don't see anything in the hands when they come up to the vehicle they don't activate their police lights or sirens they don't and now just because they're not there can't tell what it is it's not like they were looking at the hands and they were empty from their perspective they just didn't know so we're not talking about probable cause here we're talking about suspicion but there still has to be something that they can point to i think all of the cases you think they might have suggested that maybe they were looking at the family pictures sharing that and talking to each other about their family situation or something else i mean is the realistic this is a crime area this is a situation where these officers with their nine years of experience each of have see lots of drug transactions which are normally hand to hand why wouldn't that be  pretty indicative of what was going on to them because i think that when you look at the case laws developing sense terry specifically this is very similar to brown versus texas where the police observed two people walking in an alleyway and they decided based upon that that was suspicious and although it was a high crime area the court said it's not unusual for people to be walking in an alley you know walked in the alley and they and saw another person in the alley who had a bag and then they reached into the bag in the alley and then and motioned to that person to go to a side alley where they went to the side alley and then they all stood around the bag looking into the bag does that change your view as to whether or not that would have because that's more analogous well out here i respectfully disagree because i still don't think we have all of those facts all we have are like hands in a car that doesn't mean anything because there's not a bag there is not money being exchanged there is not anything else that they specifically point right correct and they follow it and when they followed nothing else came to the forefront to raise their says they're out of the car but their backs again are to them so again they're making an assumption that they're inspecting something in their hands they can't again can't see their transactions they have they have to have something that's probable cause then they make the arrest on that basis that's a different story well there's a difference between like starting from intuition in singletary they go in more to talk about a hunch and intuition forming into reasonable suspicion and because of there's experience maybe they did have intuition but that doesn't satisfy the fourth amendment standard to allow this detention so that because they can't say anything else and again this all occurred in under a minute i mean they observation of the intersection was thirty to forty five seconds and detective could tell said when they came up it was five seconds after detective abraham exit at the car and the reason i'm saying suppression is warranted here because this is a case where the police didn't operate began to run and you know you have these i mean the sign that says police it's not a little tag that says i'm walter and i'm your server tonight it's me there's a reason that they wear these things it's so that every cop who every other cop is and so that they can they can they can announce their their presence but that's not what they did and we don't know about the vest we don't know about the lady and that has to be held against the government because they did they did not want the court to all of a hearing and have a joint next fifty seven and their motion papers they said you have all you need you can decided on the county court record and that's what they asked the district court judge to do and that's what he did and that record there were not enough facts to support a reasonable suspicion that mr bell was involved in criminal activity and his flight can be considered in the analysis because it was provoked by the actions of the police officers who failed to announce themselves who failed to display a lawful authority in order to if you would agree that they were announcing themselves and making a lawful display of a story if they were wearing a vest that prominently said police on it as opposed to you know minuscule i don't know that because i don't know anything about the vest i don't know how displayed it was i don't know if it was reflective like we don't know that and that's because it's not in the record the experience of the officers in terms of identifying drug transactions relevant to their view of reasonable suspicion if the officers believe that they're seeing a drug transaction in there and they i believe that based upon high crime area stop vehicle in the middle of the street hands reaching in and that to them going off into the side street looking at something there that to them signals drug transaction based upon experience before you get to flight doesn't that together give you more than the cases that you folks have cited oh i don't think so i think there is less i mean and  freeman judge toler talked about how factors such as high crime area and flayed are just generic factors that the government has to give space besa visit he to in order to make them fall under reasonable suspicion area because just being in a high crime area and talking to someone should not be enough to support a detention under these circumstances thank you thank you  honour's i think the floor with my adversaries argument is it is truncated with only the encounter the first encounter observing mr bell next to the car in the middle of the street and saying that that wasn't enough to approach mr bell they didn't need any standard of proof to approach mr bell but when they subsequently did they also observed mr belin the driver the car observing something in their hands so there are those two things that if for some reason the police don't have reasonable suspicion based on seeing the hands go into the car in the middle of the street they certainly have it by the time they observed mr bell on his accomplice if you will looking down in their hands and when he said they they observed something in their hands where in the record does it say something in the hands i thought it was just the hands reaching in i'm sorry it is just the hands reaching into the car when the police subsequently see mr bell on the side street they say the see him in the person he is with looking at their hands as if they are looking at something in their hands they don't see what it is when this business of the side street is that the right time is it or is it or or something in a different street that's it's perpendicular to the street that they were on originally or is it just you're pulling over behind some sort of a barricade or something like that i don't recall if it's a right turn or a left turn i apologize or as a turn it is a turn the way i read the record it's it's another intersection with the street that the car was first observed stopping on  not the perpendicular road at that intersection it was yet another street because it was maple street and genesee street where they were observed in the middle of the street it was maple terrace where the police later observe them outside of the car so yet another street