to talk a little bit about the appendix because it's balloonists and might be a little bit difficult to identify the core material so i thought i would try to do that  that two people have brought purchased one package of city defender and product and they weren't necessarily attached to that vehicle they could have been but there was no certainty whatsoever and that at some time prior to these purchases somebody that was in the truck had some conversation rather brief with a guy named steve turner who was now into the police products i think turning to the wrong i don't believe there is any cases then is this one that says there is reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle i think the if you look at  suspicion here they had to purchasers they observed them outside the store inside the store they could see what they were actually purchasing inside the store and they identified the fact that not only did they purchased pseudoephedrine products but they also purchased with me and batteries at a different store so my point here is they clearly have a lot more to go on to identify the  to survey islands both inside and outside and there they saw two people both entering an accident so you know from my standpoint i think a more accurate view had information specifically identifying them and they purchased more than one product that was a combination of products that might indicate an intent to manufacture sudafed because as we know it's not  remand and i had an exhibit a where i am the lines of what the court said versus what the records on each one so i guess somebody using the stoplight would say that clearly they didn't have reasonable suspicion to stop the car had a lot of speculation if you listen to the audio you'll see they got rather carried away about what might be happening and i don't think they had reasonable suspicion to stop the next question is whether they had the authority to vehicle then you would have the right to order somebody out of the vehicle but you don't have the right to order them out of the vehicle if you can stop them from religion elsewhere logician constraints i'd like to ask a question about jones i mean he makes it sound like it was quite a bit later and that continually that he actually ordered the da in other words he claims the observer was in bergen boys in bergen having trouble and  then you know he wanted the dog to come and take care of the situation and i don't believe that there's enough time for all that to happen so i basically i think two seconds that would be about as much time as it takes to get out of the car and  trek across the chest he didn't say that the gun was pointed and he didn't say that he and i and realistically you know part of the problem is it was dark but you know he did not like he made eye bitten and and he didn't really know what to do that was part of the problem i haven't even talked about policies but they didn't follow any of their policies the person in command of the scene was just joking laughs he didn't ask the dog to be probable cause that would substantiate the use of force maybe not it wasn't that deadly until the the he was shot but if you look at the continuum and the use of force policy it's entire time after the vehicle stop the record shows that between the time a shot gun was located and shots were fired thirty seven seconds elapsed between the time that the dog was released and mr a breeze way and encountered an officer the officer had only a nd or two to react court found there in a situation where it's tense and uncertain there's simply no time to wait and see  similarly this or god who claims that a taser should have been implemented but they squarely has made it very clear that you were granted not scrutinize a particular tactical decision then an officer doesn't need to pursue the most prudent course as long dr because there was an indication that there's a shotgun in the backseat when mr goss then show food and went to move himself out of the vehicle he pushed the corridor into certain jewels and immediately took off running around the back of the vehicle and then proceeded was truly down the road which is that what time officer jones released the chain and office officer bane and officers  proceeded to fight chase him so that is the end disputed facts that are in the record in the officer's view of that is is under rebutted by any other evidence it's also supported by a passenger in the front seat delling graf your own case your honor man versus you are now from two thousand and seven there was a canine it was used in that piece and it was used for the canine in a bite my whole remover was not unreasonable use of force in that particular pattern and that's that's considered a least less alternative least deadly option actually if for example the pain that had been able to secure mr gosling and bring him to the ground without him pulling the weapon the arrest might have been  know i don't think there's any they didn't have any basis to use deadly force before the gun came out no but the dog is i guess medium for sunday or their policy and i just wonder but maybe that's not really the main issue here the main issue seemed to be the stop in the use and the shooting you know but expect to a point judge called tonight as i said earlier  on this panel on the it circuit make it clear that this quote this quote will be reluctant to do monday morning quarterbacking woulda coulda shoulda what might have happened i just wondered if it's ordinary practice i guess in cedar rapids to send a dog after someone in this kind of situation as opposed to old fashioned chasing well one flanking him down later i'll tell you it went to a view of the east of a dog in a situation like this where we knew there was a shotgun that it was apparently in the vehicle mr goss been spun out of the car had not been patted down and mutely begin running down the street and the officers gave chase and had a situation particularly where there hasn't been a pat down of the suspect it's particularly dangerous and you address the reasonable suspicion stop ms o'donnell who says that purchasing two packets of sud system the fact that two occupants of the truck santo's and mr gusman me to defend encroaches in less than twenty minutes of each other and returned directly to the truck after each purchase and then similarly going on white went out some feeling under the truck and then back in the truck along with the multiple purchases in the back that the two individuals split up and returned to the truck the concluded that these two interviews were displaying of normal and suspicious as if it subjectively reasonable does not violate the th amendment and the fact that the gun was displayed in officer jones at the time believe that he he heard his partner you know gun or jesus gun and then he saw the flash and he saw his partner for down lead him to believe in any reasonable offer to officer to believe that that his office who had been shot and that the firearm had been just heard by mr dawson and that that's the undisputed material are there's no other evidence to deny any of that evidence you have to take yourself off of music though or we can hear you but they didn't know it at the time and there was no flash of the gun an opposite gehring there did say adi's the gun but jones who i think was being referred to by mr stone and a kid that he never saw them gun go off and never heard a flash so i guess that's what i would have to say so thank very well thank you for your arguments we thank both council for appearing and