case is governed by this course recent decision in united states versus brown the law on anonymous tips such as happens here is well established one thing must be reliable two they must provide information regarding illegal activity and this court's decision in brown held specifically that identify color reporting secondhand information about a person with a gun which is precisely the sort of circumstances present in this case as i understand it your honor and i did read your concurring opinion quite closely i believe that presumptive lawful as such as that in washington is a data point but i did not believe the determinative and in fact i looked at the majority that productive awfulness aside it still is a crime and i believe the courts getting their concurring opinion looked at some statistics one being california being less than two percent or so or less a point two percent having a concealed firearm licenses and washington being a bit higher is somewhere around ten percent that still ninety percent of person that don't have licenses and would be committing a crime by carrying a firearm the  i do want to bring to the court's attention that foster unlike the case here the caller actually did observe st hand the dependable brandish a gun and even then in foster the responding officers talked to him and told the defendant after they came upon him that they needed to ask him some questions about whether you acted to justify a long before he play none of those facts are extant here and that's what i really want to get to because i think this is what  why is that not relevant in looking at whether there's reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime in the state we're four hundred and ninety nine out of five hundred people don't have a permit to carry concealed grouch if you are it's certainly relevant to the police duty to investigate however and i think graham makes this clear i also think both florida versus j l and terry crisp will make this clear as well that you need actual the police need to be able to talk to somebody prior to them developing with the suspicion to corroborate the fact that there was illegal activity afoot in this particular sure that the fact that somebody does not personally know that a person is carrying a gun saying i think he's running it gives the police any additional information all it does describe what a person is doing  any specific knowledge about whether dispersant had begun and not so it certainly is relevant to the police officers duty to investigate but it is not right people level of real suspicion until the police are actually able to corroborate with which is filtered through someone who has identified them so it seems like there are multiple people reporting the person you call makes some difference doesn't it well it's again it is relevant to the police's duty to investigate and if nothing else you know would you have the dispatcher telling them that the nine hundred and eleven caller is on the line they have identified who this person is but you know there was no there was no finding faults i mean there are a number of circumstances that were broadcast to the police officers that were responding the fact that there may have been see people it again is relevant to their duty to investigate if anything else nothing else what he should have done was required otherwise you know if you take that away you can have two or three anonymous tip supporting the same thing and police officers who call it a claim with a position even though they don't have the opportunity to confront the person reliable because you could figure out who the caller was and talk to the leader but there's no requirement that the police go find the person and talk to them before they make the stop so i'm a little confused about how how this lines up what you're arguing lines  well what i'm saying your honor is it's i'm not saying it's necessarily the cynical or not but it's definitely one of the factors that the courts look to is that ability and this particular case the police could have done a number of things short of engaging in a high profile to information he received secondhand and had no basis and no firsthand knowledge of yourself now that's one of the things that that i think is it's critical here is that the the court in this case and if nothing else the tenor of the dispatches call it think it's relevant as well because the caller said there was no forward fire in other words dispatcher told the police officers  there was no fight involved all we have here is somebody that can identify and determine the person who is leaving the scene in a black crown victoria this seems to be me d seems to me to be nothing more than effectively anonymous under the composed of brown renders the police subsequent conduct arrest rather than just a terrorist that i believe it was such a cold in the stated that he determined that it was important to do a where carrying a gun in any variety of ways is presumptively illegal at least three people saw the defendant with a gun and were concerned enough to report it to someone with a position of responsibility yet one of the nice who called the police that color identified himself watch the defendant going to with nd bar leave and suddenly take off running and then he pointed to the police who had started following the wrong car to the defendant there was reasonable suspicion to stop a defendant an officer safety concerns justified the tactics used during the police i'd like to start by discussing the call to the police call created reasonable suspicion both because it was sufficiently reliable and because it was ind of illegal activity there at least nine reasons why this call was reliable it was a recorded call that led to an immediate police response similar to a nine hundred and eleven call a witness to provide a detailed description of the defendant not only describing the defendant and his clothing but also pointing the police to the descendants car after they started following the wrong car the collar fully identified himself his name call that number his position at the had seen the gun allowing the place to find them later witness to also provided the basis for his knowledge and the patrons knowledge which was d that he had a position of responsibility at the bar and the patrons had reported to him that they had seen the defend it with a pistol and this call was also more reliable because you witnessed people reporting sorry do you think the police would be able to find the patrons and identify them later i'm not sure i understand how that would have happened in fact that they i think the fact that they were identified as patrons and witnesses to explain what his position at the car would let would indicate that the police that they had an avenue of identifying who the patrons were so that these weren't necessarily people who could just entirely accountability which is the concern that the telephone and and speaking of accountability i think it's important to discuss another reason that this you have the absence of any indication that anyone was refusing to talk to the police that anyone didn't want to be held accountable for the information they were providing and that's different from grounds where the the i witness aggregating the reports that he has got from multiple people and that gets you a sion i think it is highly impractical to require someone placing a call in this kind of situation to then rattle off the names and contact information of every person who has reported the illegal activity  and then to go back to the factors establishing reliability i'd also like to point out that witness just provided the direction of the suspect travel which is the police then confirmed when they stopped the defendant who had been going  consider the fact that this was a crime that occurred in california but i like to make a couple more points about that issue first of all the police at the time don't need to identify the precise statute that's been violated they just need to have some basis to believe that criminal activity is afoot and while carrying a concealed weapon is presumptively unlawful in california there are also several other crimes that were implicated by witness to call it a crime to carry a loaded weapon in public or in a car and in addition to carrying a concealed weapon it's also a crime in california to open they carry a weapon if it there we are also we also mentioned that there is in california of course also a law against brandishing a weapon and you know one more the foster case foster looked at that existence that statute at night and found that that statute was further evidence that the constitution permitted a stop of the defendant so in addition to the two of them saw was an arrest yes your honor the the stop was not an arrest because as the district court found the the it occurred under circumstances justifying officers fear for personal safety and washington d lambert which defendant mentioned noted that where suspects are on cooperated or where a threat to the police are investigating the possibility of a god and they can come with weapons drawn and all of the levels of force that were used here you know your honor i think the circumstances here are slightly different and that's i'd like to discuss that both in terms stop i want to point out to the court that the escalation of the stop here actually was was really quite gradual particularly under the circumstances which are a traffic stop late at night so the stop starts at and thirty one and the officers don't all immediately arrive with guns blazing and handcuff the defendant and put him in the patrol car instead they wait several minutes to give him an opportunity to respond so not only do all the officers not arrive at one but but you can see at our fifty three dollars they requested the dog and they know that the subject is uncooperative and on the include the he was he was yelling and officer cold and noted that he was it seemed that he was trying to distract the officer which is the same s and in fact he was lowering his so the the officers were pas for the dog to get out there and then they didn't approach that defendant and handcuffed him until it was some handcuff them and after that they they find the gun at a level forty two which brings me to another point which is that the stop the detention here the duration before they find the gun  is quite short which under washington versus lambert is something the court can consider the defendant it can touch here for somewhere between three and five minutes and the gun is found just about ten minutes escalation here was also we've been keeping with the protocol or with the congress police department protocol for high risk stop my colleagues mentioned that it was officer colgan who is conducted in accordance with apartment protocol as decided by a more senior officer turn to the justification for the stop judge strickland as you pointed out there was information that the defendant had a gun that and that was information that at least three people had seen the gun and under and were in washington d lambert that is a factor and that the court certainly certainly should consider and that that fraught with dangers to the officer there was also and i think this is something that differentiates this case from some of the other cited in the government's brief even the officers have a high degree of specificity in it in detail he pointed the police to the defendant's car and provided the direction of travel and that differentiates this case from other cases like miles and edward where even in those cases the court found that there was no arrest but in those cases you might you had a suspect that match perhaps a more general description was found in the twenty you didn't have that kind of specific identification that made gave these officers a high degree of certainty that based on the tape that the defendant was aren't the lack of cooperation is also something that this court has recognized  who did not match the description of the prospect began yelling and it seemed like he was trying to distract the officers i he was also frisked he was handcuffed for a longer period of time in his car with searched and there  pointed out that there in the p f are also because the defendant at sentencing never to have said those prior convictions or the fact that he had been sentenced in each for more than a year and that he had in fact served more than a year in prison and he would have had an incentive at sentencing to correct those facts if those had been wrong i think and in addition i think it also illustrates that the kinds of stocks we're looking at here are our prior convictions the length of sentencing and amount of time served maybe use or fact that are functionally judicially noticeable and so i think that particularly and that i would also say that vander brown has not even now he hasn't contested those fact he has not offered any explanation as to how he might not have actually known that he was a felon nor could he particularly given that one of the conviction was for being a felon in possession of a firearm and it occurred less than two years before this before this offense did and i think under the supreme court case and johnson that matters because in johnson in rejecting a plain error a claim the supreme court noted that the defendant did not contest the issue there was materiality a trial or on appeal so i think here similarly we look and we see that the defendant has never contested knowledge of status could not validly contest knowledge of status on these facts and i think it makes it abundantly clear that he can't satisfy the plain error test as described in johnson and callers to nine hundred and eleven in terms of locating witnesses the question remains and has always been what information do the police actually have before they engage in the conduct i think is appropriate to the investigation with respect to to a pat search of a car i believe that mystical long so controls in terms of the defendant having to be able to gain immediate access to a firearm and again in this for structural as well as to push be evidence grounds warrants reversal in this case thank you both sides for the very helpful arguments the cases submitted and we're adjourned for the day