whether in this particular case there was actually governmental involvement or not it is actually our position that with this state of the record it is impossible to term and whether there was in fact governmental  also the standard for the it's off the constitutional standard standard you know just tell me why on this record they don't have reasonable suspicion to stop somebody who has been who they've been observing for hours in the casino who anion has just into the necessity for a hearing one it burst we disputed the fact that this was his girlfriend and the government hammers very heartened that number two we also disputed the fact something that makes it into that we would argue makes it into not a consensual encounter instead makes that terry stop so basically what you're saying is because of the conclusion that this was a private search the the  enough and we submit that there are in this case a statutory scheme that nevada has signifies much more involvement than there was for instance in the water case where you have simply historical  what where you have some historical accounts in which to form it provided some information in the past and that was sufficient they in that case the government did not know that he had this what was their intent and in detaining mr morris and also general practices what is their general practice as in relationship with metro what is it does metro train their officers entanglement this is way beyond what we have in our you are who's got who got the burden who's got the burden here you have the burden ok but it is a little bit of a fishing expedition you want to know whether whether north las vegas police department had any contact that may have alerted the station casinos security officers to look for these folks you're looking for you know i'm not asking for just a mere fishing expedition i'm just asking for the bills they take him back into the office at that point they had him down and find the twenty two correct yes yes and what and and if you don't have evidence that they were acting in concert with the police then what's on reasonable about that well again i think that what what what what even if we were assuming that the police took them off what would be unreasonable about that what my point again is not that i'm not saying that i can meet my burden on what i got right now but i can't i think meet my burden to have an  have that they intent of the casino officers was a public one that was to stop mr morris for the purposes of law enforcement i certainly think that that's going to come up and number   and good morning my name is robert alman representing the united states may please the court september eighth two thousand and three the security guards at the casino stopped mr morris because they believed he was stealing from the casino by attempting to exchange counterfeit money for real money when they stopped him and questioned mr morris confirmed that belief by giving them yet more counterfeit bills facts are undisputed it's also undisputed that police had no knowledge of or acquiescence in any of the foregoing actions furthermore they discovered the gun apparently through a pat down because it was found in his right front pocket again without any knowledge of or acquiescence in that activity from the police now absent a factual nexus that connects the government to those acts by the security guards there's no fourth amendment implications so what mr morris is attempting to do is to create one defacto as a matter of i relying on the nevada statute and i think that his position has just changed in court i'm sorry i don't hear that i think that his position has just changed today in court because the brief argues that the nevada statute as a matter of law categorically deputize those are the employees of casinos for fourth amendment search and seizure purposes and i status casino employees and imbuing them with a police power but what you don't know from the brief is that there are a number of other nevada statutes that do the same thing and if that argument is correct the state of nevada has virtually de one applies to movie theater owners and their employees that's nevada revised statute two a five point two one six and there's a comparable sports venue statute four six four point one zero one all of those statutes afford the same degree of the new unity and all of them authorize merchants owners of sports and then use owners of movie theaters and their employees to do precisely what this statute enables casino employees to do every employee of every retailer in nevada is a police officer for fourth amendment purposes under the defense arguments here what sort of criteria do you think is required in order for the defendant  immunity granted to employees of retail shops when they have reason to believe that someone is shoplifting but we don't worry about immunity in this case we're worrying about whether you can suppress what was taken from there's been a correction and  in this instance at the time of the stop there was certainly reasonable suspicion so the point really becomes moot when you look at the facts of this case because even if you treated these casino security guard as full fledged police officers they had facts that amounted to more than reasonable suspicion before they even began to question mr i think that what we're being told and i was not aware of that so i haven't i haven't the excerpts of record i concede that there is a pro forma request for hearing in the caption but beyond that there is no statement of any material issue in dispute or in fact of any fact in dispute furthermore nowhere in the body of that motion does the defendant suggest that hearing is required to the contrary he argues as i've just restated today that the nevada statute imbued those casino security officers with the power of the police categorically as a matter of law and therefore there was a fourth been a violation and for no other reason not to ask for evidence you're hearing before the straight judge or the district court did not your honor except in the caption of that pleading and as this court's precedent states and we cite the case on i believe it's page eighteen of the moving papers have to specify the material issue in dispute in order to get a hearing and we don't dispute that he had a right to legal recourse over this issue we certainly had a right to move to suppress but interesting lee and i think importantly motion to suppress reli exclusively on the security guard's report which is reproduced in pages twelve and thirteen of the supplemental excerpts of record at that time he was saying not only that there were no facts in dispute but that the facts the magistrate relied on you know were taken for granted and said by the defendant now as support pointed out rather ably earlier the security guards had reasonable suspicion by the time they stop mr morris there were a couple of the fact that absent that that were in articulated and may not come out in the briefs but ms mr morse and ms easily had been together in the casino in each other's company for over seven hours when ms easily attempted to pass the counterfeit bill she told security off cers that she got the bill from her boyfriend who under all appearances was mr morris before he was yes it was your honor and mr morris chose that moment of all moments after that secure in the casino for seven hours to quickly exit and go outside before he did so he walked by ms easily while she was being questioned by security guards and even though he had spent the last seven hours in her company walked by surveyed the situation but made no acknowledgement of her and if you look at page twelve which reproduces the security guards report you'll notice the security guard authored the report said that he found e that as part of the miller test is that the casino was operating for so many interests and not for governmental interest and i don't know how you can make that finding without hearing perhaps can make it as to the original but after that he was the report says that he was advised he was being detained for a police investigation the statute apparently authorizes him to be detained they have to carry criteria met at that point the guns in his right front pocket the path down produces the gun you have no fourth amendment implication beyond that we know that the casino officers were acting in the interest of the  ino because the undisputed fact is that they stopped mr morris because they believed he was passing counterfeit money or aiding someone else and passing counterfeit money that certainly is an action and duty taken by the security officers for the benefit of the casino interestingly the defendant argues on the one hand that the sole purpose of this statute is to enable security officers in casinos to further police purposes for the public good only yet page twelve of the brief he cites legislative history that says that this statute will give the casino industry and i'm quoting now another tool against slot cheaters and quote obviously to the benefit of the casino owners as opposed to a public good police power in general if the initial stop to return to your first question your comments test question that so your concept is that if purpose of the private entity is to turn somebody over to the police because it's in their interest to turn somebody over the police but it's always you turn something over the place all that's in their interest that's enough private interest is that essentially you're saying no your honor because i think this court's precedent i'm citing the united states versus cleveland case says that the if the sole purpose of the private act or is to further the government purpose then you've met the second right i understand that but i understood you to try to be trying to argue a point to be arguing that it's not that even sort of hypothetical because i understand your point that it that anything after that really doesn't matter for a fourth minute purposes but assuming for some reason that it did from that point lower is your one point one two six the first reference gives private persons authority to make arrest and second one defines the circumstances under which they can do so and it's when they have a reasonable belief that a felony has been committed would  counterfeit bills the answer is yes because they then have with that would that be an independent ground then for for them holding him aside from the question of depositions holding him for i would go further and say at that point any private citizen would have had the right to arrest mr morris and detain him until police could get him under the nevada statutes and that's why i think the implication is so important because if you accept the defendant's argument i think you have to accept that every person in that that has been deputized for fourth amendment purposes and if everyone is the police officer no one is arrested has committed a felony it's not an issue of whether it is reasonable belief that he committed a felony it's has committed a felony or second when a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the government's prove to prove that the statements were voluntary well that's certainly not the case in an addition to that i want to emphasize that the government is trying to cast this as a categorical issue wouldn't not asking for in a