this case raises the issue of whether the chicago police department had the requisite suspicion to seize miss wells and i think within this issue there are two inquiries and that's at what point was mr wilson actually seized and whether  there was the requisite suspicion the season and as this court know is policemen only stop a person if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that he is engaged in criminal activity and the focus on reasonable this balances the need to seize against the invasion and because the totality of a yes is it the defendant's position that when he was asked to stand by the officer that he stood up and gauged with the officer and had left or was it one continuous motion from having been seated to le he stood up and he was engaging with the officer as he was standing up and i believe that the seizure actually occurred right when the officer ordered him to stand up he was tolerant over him he didn't have any pleasantries to say no questions asked and he demanded that mr wilson stand up d and he gestured to do so at the same time there was another officer approaching from the other side of mr wells and i know the government has argued that because mr wilson began to flee he didn't actually comply with the order from the police officers and thus he wasn't seized and so he was actually tackled oh i think with that point misses is that all the cases that the government cite circumstances inquiries specked intensive we have to look at the back so what happened don's may th two thousand and seventeen and the police were dispatched the thirty morning all for was douglas and they were given a specific description of but even if there was not reasonable suspicion for a terry stop when the officer st approached your client if he wasn't see it's under her diary and he fled to then we're not judging at that point we're judging a tackle and i've watched the video and it looks pretty fluid i mean he just stands up and runs i mean there isn't a pause where using aging it's just a bolting so i think it's that moment on which your case turns what happens when the officer said stand up and he took yes your honor and if you look at this court's recent opinion and whole it even found that the investigatory stop happened as the officer approached howell and ask a question it was about point who'd already deals with a police officer chasing a fleeing suspect and the suspect ignores the commands of the orders of the police officer sort no point was already  actually still or sitting with mr wilson mr wilson did not start moving away when officers arrived at the playground you can start moving away as the officers were approached them this happened after  that's the main difference i think between what are you d and mr wilson and the same thing is in united states verse thirty two thousand four hundred dollars in fines there the police officers attempted to block in a vehicle that was already moving i think it tried to turn around a de sac and it hit a police car as it was trying to drive away and drove away at no point was that car actually still or faced with a police officer same thing in united states or is griffin the police activated lights to curb an already moving vehicle and tentative a the police before submitting united states st or that was cited by the government the defendant was walking back away from the officer as the officer was telling him come forward he was already mov of the last one of the government relied on was state's verse may and the defendant left the area where the officers were arriving to and was weaving through the people and officers were telling him to stop as the defendant upbringing that mr wilson had and this is talked about for diverse bostic and this was a consensual encounter and judge alonso ruled that it wasn't consensual encounter and we're not disagreeing with you didn't voluntarily go up to the officer you don't want to interact to the officers and when the officers came to the playground he could have left he could start running right away but he sat down and when the officers came up right in front of him he was still and that's what the troll or evil and mr wilson did stand up i agree it's very on the cusp of where there was fluid or not but he did stand up and that's the compliance that we need to our government have argued that it's implicit that a stand up and stay here but we can't it's more akin to this and there the defendant was a passenger in a car that was pulled over by the police officers they got out of the car and the police officer told him the stuff all the defendant did was say what do you want and as stop doing something instead he just says stand out are the facts here last onerous than thirty thousand for her well there was nothing for the officer to tell mr wilson to stop doing because he wasn't doing anything wrong he was just sitting there playground not brandishing any kind of contraband or firearm or drugs and i think that's part of the facts that we have to look at as there's nothing in the record that even suggests that the voltage that officers thought was some kind of fire or drugs or contraband the entire time they say it's unknown from the time they st seen from a distance so when they come up and again the difference you mr wilson and the bonds of thirty two thousand four hundred isn't that case the defendant was already moving he was never to stand still officers and all they say is get up and he just and i think he did do even if you go past the point of where and it's not a seizure just because your don't understand up which i believe it is just the fact that he stood up is enough and there's no time limit or time expectation for how long compliance has to be something it's this is a stop watch inc we're not here timing will it comply for five seconds or to comply for thirty seconds whether or not he did what he was told to do and he did here and now the government relies on i think harris versus men and united states versus jeter and both of those cases officers never actually came up to the defendants and jeter they were approaching him and he dropped the bike and stopped momentarily but ran before the officers ever got him in here is the officers never got to be protected to kneel down and well mr wilson actually did what he was told to do and the only met instance it's the seizure of it's not when he was ordered to stand up and we would never argue of an officer physically touch the defendant whether the seizure occurred at that moment it's the moment that he's physically touched by the officer and he doesn't have to be restrained by the officer for one second or thirty seconds or a minute or whatever it is it's the nd that he's touched and there's a seizure and all this happens really what it does if someone  match he does see a ball and there is this discussion in the police report about the defendant covering the bulge but because it would not have been apparent to the officer with the video was worried that there not a who a mr wilson's leg would need to know that just from the way he approach friend simply did not submit to the show authority which was that the direction that the defendant stand up out defense counsel claims that in all cases regarding this doctrine the defendant was already moving and that simply inaccurate and i don't see any additional questions that thank you mr rath but mr glassman you can have one more minute for a bottle and if you don't i just want to say that mr wilson did actually comply he stood up and that's all he was asked to do there was nothing as more of them and at the moment he stood  coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening but it terminated what was happening and immediately seizing people on arrival are two different things and the letter was premature and i think coming up to mr wilson demanding that he stand up and seizing of that moment