please take or my name is gary dickey from dickie campbell and say how it was firm in the morning and together with one of downey we represent daniel robins who d appears before this court asking you to reverse the district court's grant of today is st address the claims d that we believe provides us the strongest grounds for reversal which is our th amendment violation as we pled and argued in our summary judgment resistance we assert that the law enforcement defendants violated mr robbins th amendment right to be free from under d reasonable searches and seizures in three ways st he was detained d without reasonable suspicion  district court should happen decide st was mr robbins arrested nd did the law enforcement defendants have probable cause and rd was his right to be free from arrest from without probable cause clearly d established and the district court correctly d addressed those issues and deferred in the facts in the light most favorable to mr robbins he would have survived summary judgment with respect to the violation the records the houses that mr robbins was walking on the sidewalk in broad daylight a public sidewalk on the public street that was adjacent to the des moines police station he had a camera that was visibly hanging from his neck he was dressed in two thousand will jeans and colored short sleeved shirt he was not armed and there is nothing about the way he was dressed or the way that he moved that would suggest he was armed he was not d violating any law he was not making any furtive movements or acting suspiciously he was not acting d in a way d that was threatening to anyone either by words or by actions he was not disrupting any cleese activities that were on or d near d the grounds of the police station he was simply on his way to the market market district in the morning which is what south of the police station as he was walking on the sidewalk he saw several civilian d cars parked parked along the street that were in an  at that point the bradley youngblood who is a defendant in this case detain robins and asked him what he was doing and when robinson answered that he was taking pictures because it was perfectly legal for him to do we believe a reasonable jury could conclude that anything less than all submission to detective young what's questions would was the reason why the situation escalated belief he was acting suspicious was not objective leave reasonable and not supported by the objective evidence in the record and that the fact that this was a high crime area standing alone is not a sufficient basis to suspect he was engaged in criminal so brown stands for the clearly established premise in holding that in or in the detention on less than the reasonable suspicion violates the  only there was nothing to suggest d that he was engaged in any illegal activity that there is no d evidence in the record that this was a high crime area although there is evidence that they have had a crime before picture that could that could be used by by vandals or terrorists to too would disrupt and destroy at least lease property and injure police officers that's pretty that's honor i point out two things st we d believe d that the was clearly d established that in d the absence of reasonable suspicion that an individual is has the constitutional right not to answer any questions at all and they're free to go on their way that's the florida of the royalties it is what the record establishes from detective young d once owned city is that people take pictures outside of that building all of the time  mr robbins requested repeatedly to know from the officers what it was that he was doing that was raising ready their suspicion in and they just did not like is attitude and they didn't like clearly established that it's has to shut off to them to react to responses well again we would submit that brown versus texas so this court could decide that they  one force the defendants underground didn't even have reasonable suspicion to initiate terror stop but with d respect to your point that they use his answers against them to elevate it to probable cause that they don't they don't even have probable bag no and i want to leave and the answer well it's where you can leave with your luggage that is sure and and and so what what happened why hasn't that let's say to detain the camera i'm not saying and that's a different issue or the main more troubling issue would what they did with the camera but if there was suspicion to detain the camera what more did they do  identify whether or not he was arrested a reasonable jury by the way the city really doesn't argue that the city argues that this is just a terrorist up and doesn't engage in any meaningful analysis but i do want property in d mr robbins had a constitutional right not to have his property seized absent warrant or d probable cause or some exceptions to the war or in this case that there simply wasn't probable cause to believe that his camera was contraband or that it was evidence of a crime that they could never identified and even today this is the defendant can identify what crime he would have been committed so videos or or photographs ever examined by technicians in the police department good to think that young indicated that he was going to seek a search warrant whenever he could get around to it and that he was working on a murder case and this would be a low priority d and he would get to it when he got and that never happened and i sent a letter to the city to the man it's returned which they did several days later before it was  i believe one of the most important principles that was articulated and the record was a statement made by detector bradley when he stated that just because something is legal doesn't mean that it isn't suspicious and to take that out of the double negative legal actions even constitutionally protected actions can at times create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but mr robbins has taken and the opposite position of that that as long as he is looking at life through the lens of this camera that nothing he's doing can be deemed suspicious if i mean to take that out to it's you know some other logical conclusions if grief well i would say because i think it's very clear from case law that there wasn't an arrest and i think the record is not clear that there was a statement that you are under arrest there are about three people talking at one time hood and you're already in the process of searching no i mean i'm having a hard time buying that that's not a brass well i would say your honor that he was surrounded by people at the time when he said am i free to go and they yes they said yes go and he said no i'm going to stay right here so the fact that he's surrounded by six people i don't think has has the impact of creating an arrest when he was surrounded the same way when he was easily still  situation well what's the reasonable suspicion that criminal activity and so forth here because host this guy any different than an urban landscape you know photographer guy spoil who i mean i see him stand in front of the board of homes here as you stand and in the in the alleys taken pictures of people from graduations and just landscape voters may you know they're all over the place although you know how is this different i mean what's the suspicion of crimes  other that it's just a little bit prickly well i would say that the difference between someone taking photographs of buildings it is distinguished here because he is taking pictures of license movements to and from the building and that's really where the crux of this is the st person who reports this is a woman named and she who's a civilian employee and she calls the officer over and says that guy is taking pictures of me getting in and out of my car and when she's called later they say why didn't you call us about that and she said you know because it's weird it's uncomfortable and so the officer youngblood is also witnessing him do this he sees him filming police activit sees the you know him actually recording the movements of officers and that's where it gets weird now if you go back to the context of a terry stop for example terry case in itself again you've got lawful activity these are guys who are walking back and forth on a city street they're looking into a store front well is that lawful activity sure and it might even be considered st amendment activity because they gather they talk they associate with one another they're just walking down the street but that officer saw that as something that looked like casing activity so we also have mr robbins here looking at cars in cars around cars in an area where it's articulate it that there that's and vandalism and when is asked that question he could have dispelled this all by saying it really bugs me that these cars are illegally parked but he doesn't he continues to a vague questions he provides false information and so from moment to moment that reasonable suspicion is growing but i don't think the use of the word arrest creates an arrest it's the kind it's the context it's how is it done the means by which it is done and the duration that's what the case law says not the words that are and so he's never handcuffed he's never put in a car they don't take into that police station that's right there that they could use to question him and so it is the least intrusive means they pat him down on the outside of this building they lift his shirt  just pat down around his jeans and so he is not d in any way appearing to have been arrested and then in terms of the duration and as i said earlier he knew that he was free to go he chose to say  that's not that that's the case i mean if the concern is that he's in good stead stopping behavior and what tech to the young bloods concern was that there is that there's testimony from the officers of the body they frisked him under terry only because they thought he was narrative dangerous they frisked tend to that well i don't think there's any specific testimony about the reasons that they frisked him they they patted his pockets down and celt for items when they  and dangerous as well was engaged in something problem of their own just didn't i but i believe that the fact that they suspected him of stalking behavior and ambush activity is what permitted the pat down go to the nd prong of whether or not it's a constitutionally established and well established constitutional right at this point i mean if you are engaged in potentially ambush like behavior what is the what assassination it's murder and that's on the rise again with police officers it's happened in this community it happened two years prior to this where an officer was shot to death so and after he was being monitored and exactly the same way which is the testimony that our officer gave in his affidavit he is the lead detective watching a guy who watches police movements he photographs he monitors where they go just like mr mr robbins was doing and then that police officer ended up being murdered and so what we're saying i guess is if we can stop and ask him something but you know we have to wait till someone gets hurt before they can pat someone down and i think in this circumstance where the ear is that he is engaged in stalking type behavior and i think that's where the pretense of this has to be again he's not just the guy walking around he's not a guy taking pictures of landscape he is honing in on individuals the it kills and and that's not something that you do see it all the time i do see people taking pictures of buildings and architecture and i mean but by his argument then police officer are wouldn't be allowed to do this activity they wouldn't be allowed to  it or go yeah i think law enforcement can do things that individuals when they're engaging in it could still rise to the level of reasonable suspicion in this context in particular mr robbins position would be was taking pictures of police officers moving to and from their homes maybe going to church maybe going to mosque so long as he's not a public street they can't do anything about that they wouldn't be able to ask him questions and they wouldn't be able to pat him down violence against police officers the heightened attacks on police officers that have happened right here in beautiful des moines are reality that officers have to deal with and so looking at the case law through that l because that is what the reasonable police officer would think it's not a matter of what the juror would think it is what a reasonable police officer with the facts they knew at that time would feel threatened and under these circumstances bradley youngblood two other named officers indicated very clearly their st concern was stalking behavior was that this guy was acting just like this other guy was who ended up shooting and killing two police officers and so that is the crux of the question for us  your honor that what what officer youngblood did was to investigate mr robbins more before he decided to try to go deeper into a spot on and avoided actually going further into us and  he sees somebody's property he seized it and then he investigated mr robbins he learned that mr robbins likes to post his grievances on youtube and his suspicions at that point were laid as to the distinction that that that's not the only way he want it or the only way he could know what mr robbins was doing they asked mr robbins repeatedly why he was taking pictures and he said i've get frustrated with police officers and where they park this youngblood was he didn't say that i'll get to it whenever he said i'm investigating a murder i will get to it as soon as i can and then he did his investigation and returned it so it's not that he was exploiting the time he actually know get around to your problems i've got my own well and i think that's that's a matter of a question of damages your honor the question under that line of cases is not about what does it cost someone it's about but could he not move about with his liberty actually impede it you know and if he has you know if he had damages or some kind of of you know monetary kind of problem with that or even just the convenience problem that is in the question a subjective belief that it's suspicious there's nothing in the record that it was objectively suspicious which is really what the standard is that is why the brown versus texas case is so important because in that case the officers harbored a belief that i phones it d was a cell phone that captured the video of george boyd's wife being green from from him and they're all over the place which walks them right into them and they will play and we assert is they have failed to