lickers it's pretty clear i think from the law that the instant mr lickers gave his driver's license over to the officers a seizure had occurred i don't think there's any doubt about that under the card said once they have the driver's license in their hand they kind of track themselves right now there was a they were ok to ask for the driver's license but once they got it he was no longer free to go and so that thereby seized him and that doesn't really hold together for the fact that even if he hadn't given the light license he still wasn't allowed could leave he had he didn't have a driver's license he printed drive away because they were going to trap tell us i mean you know he wasn't i mean i actually had a question about that initial encounter too because his id or a way you could look at this case which i believe may be the way the chief judge darrow looked at it is that the police can walk up to the car consensual encounter you can say i don't feel like talking to you but say things they've seen things that strike them as odd and they begin to develop reasonable suspicion so they can at least ask for the driver's license maybe they can ask for the driver's license with out of that by the time they ask for the driver's license there are things that they think are strange they think he might be tweaking they think he might be doing they don't know what he's doing but that he's behaving in an odd way the car is parked in place then they get the driver's license and then of course once once they at you know they're worried about the towel maybe has a gun under it is something else but as soon as he moves towel then that's that correct but the thing is that once they approach him the only reason they approach him and mcveigh testified to this clearly at the hearing it was just odd there was no crime being committed he testified to that on cross examination even when he took the driver's license he said there's no crime being convicted convicted there's nothing there i just need to check things out and frankly the more he say now i'm taken off i'm not up to anything i'm leavin started the car drove away but under knoebels the once they were in a position of power because they had both sides blocked off miracle was in the back of the car to power position that they had blocked the car once he gave the driver's license over and they basically show their event credentials and they basically made it a position of power for him to not be able to have the choice narrow it once the client did a driver's license but they took a half a step america ordered him to keep your hands up basically this was a whole power thing they knew that they had seized him and that he wasn't and he knew he didn't seize now he may have been a little nervous but nervous as are they paid enough that maybe he was nervous because these guys two guys came up to him basically showing so fake id maybe there are these maybe they're drug dealers he doesn't know that maybe they are some of the nervousness and count in there really isn't much else anything else that warrants than even asking them for a driver's license because but there's not a lot that i can think of to get back to judge the first line that says automatically it's a matter of law as soon as you give your driver's license to a police officer you're see i mean most people at some point or another have been stopped in the briefs says that that is a seizure because once you give the driver's license the person cannot first of all mr lookers could not get out of the car not because mcveigh was blocking it but once he can't even drive the car away because he doesn't have a license to that's a traffic get out of the car at that point i don't remember if she made that actual determination if she could could or couldn't but the facts and matter is that mcveigh had to lock that door he was standing right by the door and he took maybe half a step back so technically that actually he had  request this is the driver's license and she says the defendant demonstrated throughout the encounter that he understood he could say yes to some request and you could say no to some and so therefore that's good evidence he knew he could say yes or there a position of power over him i think a reasonable person or they didn't draw their guns but a reasonable person would believe that maybe he doesn't have the authority but once they took the driver's license he didn't suggest going to say no to them after the fact when he said you know in driver's license she says i think reasonable suspicion had been developed at that point and she reviews the facts they were well we're disputing that reasonable suspicion had been developed at that point because mr officer mcveigh himself have your time run out on you i want to get your reaction to one other issue in the case and that is with respect to the search warrant both parties seem to want to put our attention on the state warrant ok if i look at the state warrant i actually think you've got a pretty good argument thank you but we have a federal warrant is well on top of it and so my question for you is what what's the relevance of the federal warrant on top of that for purposes of the leon good faith analysis was very true to my brief there the good faith has to be relied upon reasonably by police officers i don't think either warrant was something that either officer under i know that but focus on the federal work correct ok you have you have an f b i agent that goes and seeks it and it's issued and then you have a forensic act forensic team at the f b i that looks at the devices ok so you've at that point in time you've had two different judges make a finding of probable cause is that a proper way to think about it if we go down the leon road in your view or is it not we should think about it some other way i think we should look at both the war but you know on the outside you know i'll grant you that his car is parked in kind of a careless way on the side of the road not the side with the parking lot where somebody might have gone  and and he's sitting inside the car but certainly nobody at the in the park or at the playground could have seen anything you really would have had to go right up next to the car so what what was he doing th really justifies the initiation of this police conduct and i believe the relevant case must age that police officers may go up to an individual and ask questions without having any reasonable suspicion so that the towel i mean you know so they go up to the car they don't and there's no gun to see you know there's there's nothing much there they think he's weird i mean i the car that they had and before that he had ended the license the officer they had passed the car and three occasions and or they'd seen the car in three occasions and each of these occasions mr lickers is engaging in the exact same pattern of unusual behavior he's looking from setting the steering wheel or his lap to the family with young children to the passenger seat on which they would later see a cellphone they also know that as you correctly stated his parking was odd and strange to pull over half on half off the road when there's a parking lot of ailill and the implication here is that he wanted to be able to see the playground what about the officers testimony at the hearing that he didn't think he was engaging in any wrongdoing when he first approached the car yes your honor that testimony at reasonable suspicion doesn't require an officer to see somebody engaging in wrongdoing they can just see suspicious behavior and i believe at the hearing he actually did testify when asked that he believed it was possible mr lickers was gearing up to commit some sort of crime so the agent didn't need to testify at the hearing that he specifically it's not something that he knew one hundred percent was it sounds like wild speculation i mean there there at this park because they have a project about the drugs that they're working on and there's references he tweaking but but you're talking about total speculation as opposed to the kind of concrete fact based throughout this entire encounter during that initial consensual encounter reasonable suspicion wasn't needed prior to the time and the license was handed to the office or i think everybody agrees on that even mr lickers and the government disputes whether reasonable s needed at the time the license was handed over so i've discussed already how they've seen mr lickers on three occasions they've noticed this park and they've called in his license plate and then they got all checks out that there's nothing wrong with that license was colorado right but he's he's no one says it's a stolen car first they give him the phony name but then when they call it by its own name he's the person to whom the car is registered well preliminarily the license plate checked out but they're still concerned about what he's doing there they're concerned about his behavior and his a specific pattern of glances particularly because it's not something they see just want it's something they see three times so when do you think reasonable suspicion attaches i think reasonable suspicion attaches prior to and once they see the towel once they see the towel and they also note at that point that he's repeatedly putting his hands underneath the towel which is something that would be very concerning to law enforcement officers who are going up to a car they don't know what's under there they also then s right that that is not enough by itself that's not all they have here so just what about this talk that they know that it's possible on craigslist that child pornography might be accessed but it's certainly possible one on craig within seventy to seventy five yards of a playground where there's a family with young children here you can make an analogy let's say mr liquors is parked outside of the school i think in that situation officers would similarly be concerned even if it is create a fair probability that evidence would be found on the phone and given the statement that craigslist contains adult and child pornography and it's possible he was looking at child pornography how does that create a fair probability that the evidence would be found on the phone well it's not just the fact that craigslist potentially contains child pornography it also is this location looking stanly of children right by a playground and not looking at them on one occasion looking at them as the officers go past the car on three different occasions he's continuing to look back at this family as they're playing on the playground supposed to you to be on what's the right way to think about the given that you have the federal form over a way and what the reason i ask the question that way is the federal warrant it's complicated because the federal warrant has in it that paragraph twenty two that talks about the video file that was uncovered as a result of the state search now that that i mean pushes it way over the edge as far as probable cause just on the face of that warrant given the video file that there's a little bit of teeth there are a lot of teeth but this the mere existence of the federal warrant does that factor into the we on analysis the fact that it was issued does an interesting question your honor i would say  in this case because where you're looking you're looking for in terms of who had good faith you're looking at officer mcveigh you're looking at an affidavit authored by cops or make that the state's or are you asking whether there was good faith to the panel or it i get it at the end of the day if we're just saying look they're just assume for discussion purposes of both more its lack of probable or the first one like probable cause you fall back on the argument well leon kicks in there's a good faith ok whose good faith are we talking about way that the state warrants squeaks through one way on good faith which then means that the things seized under the state warrant clued in this file can show up in the affidavit supporting the federal warrant which squeaks by layer two of leon how this works well it's our position that the federal warrant doesn't need to squeak by and lawyers who have leon because even if you x as the course and discussed in the results of the state's search warrant there's plenty of probable cause there and the second search warrant discussed and provides more deep much more detail than the state wide head that discusses the ad parking place it discusses the jittery demeanor in the pattern of glances we've already gone over on it also would go to the federal warrant for the poisonous tree for anything derived on that he said mcveigh said that no crime is being committed and but he did in this far as approaching the car he thought my client was tweaking but he even that even went away because he said he determined it was not so therefore you got every thing's going away from reasonable suspicion by the time your question a license and i don't think there was good faith is the state court is concerned i don't know how it looks they did the warrant i just looked it up he he was the finance he was the witness i don't know how he can say that there was good faith when he's the fine and i don't want to get back on it as much i think judge seems question though was sure he absolutely he's the fire and he signs it right but leon often asked the question does it not the the officer that then executes the search which may or may not be the same as the a fire so if at the state level mcveigh is the drug guy who had an encounter in the park signs the warrant out he may have given it to the tech people you're right and i think that as i indicated in my reply brief i think looking at that warrant the state warrants i think a reasonable police officer whose experience has a star get a need and that's not sufficient thinking or thank you very much and you are twenty four you're not