mr ingram reasonably believed that he was not free to disregard the order or to leave the office he says what the officer didn't say what he said he said your honor  officers declaration was a summary and it's recounting of the conversation it doesn't say start hearing on this there was not a hearing and the reason why there was not a hearing was that the party speculated to the fa room rolled down the window directed not requested directed and that's it page sixty one of the excerpts of record so at that point mr ingram reasonably believe that he was not free to leave or disregard the order and the compelled opening of the a window honor it wasn't merely approaching the car the government in its opposition brief mischaracterized my argument saying that i was saying that merely approaching a car is a seizure it's not well at least not in this case one can imagine  which fifty armed swat people you know approach a car and that would itself be a seizure but in this case we have more than than we have as the your honor said two arms uniformed police officers on either side of the car and then a direction not a request recall as the windows were full of your kid if you couldn't see not tinted but foggy that was what the officer said this declaration he couldn't see from far away and that's why he approached the window but there's no there was no claim by the different about that case is that the district court found and this court held it was not clearly erroneous to find that the encounter was consensual and what happened is that the officer in that case requested leave to ask the person  motivated by the public welfare when doing their work i think we all hope that they do but merely calling something a welfare check cannot insulated from the fourth amendment and what the supreme court and this court have made clear is that the subjective intent of the officers he's  relevant to nearly every fourth amendment analysis the only time it's not is in the context of an inventory search but in every other context it's irrelevant to whether they were motivated by checking on the welfare or not it is of no moment constitutionally and as a factual matter it also by the government in which there was a man who was the being on drugs inside the car and there you have an exit and see that requires an officer action and there was nothing like that here in fact in the past a lot of space the doors are already open because the fire  was not prior to the officers smelling marijuana when mr ingram rolled down his window and they were able to seize him based on plain smell and plain view but let me let me go back to the record  reviewing the transcript i would just like to point out that the government did not say so minutes on the consensual issue that the encounter was not consensual the government agreed on line sixty one  was no reason outlook can say there was no reasonable suspicion it was a welfare check the officers didn't know what was going on they see this car parked by itself they can't see into the car so they proceed the car to conduct with the welfare check they had only seen mr ingram in can communicate with him was there still reason for welfare check at that point i believe there was once he saw him i mean he was able he wanted to talk to him why if he could see him nobody in the car was unconscious there was no  martinez just wanting to check on the welfare i mean i think asking him to roll down the window is not such an unreasonable request and i liken it to knocking on a door i mean whether he knocked on the door or asked him to roll down the window came back and still saw the car parked there so he decided to conduct a welfare check in that case the defendant got out of the car that's a little bit it is different but i think in this case i mean i think it's similar i mean  it was they asked him to roll down the when there are directed direction doesn't mean i don't think specifically in order i mean there's no evidence that he you know had he intimidated him into rolling down the window that he had his gun drawn to run to roll down the window that he was in other words i think i think looking at the coercion you think if you look at what is the course the tactics are and some of the other cases like the  well going back to just because you have officers arms and a uniform well everyone knows officers are armed and in uniform i don't think that alone is compelling enough council police if you're saying you know alone in a parking lot with an person would feel free to leave and if he drove off the police would have got in the car and chased him well if you drove off and the police chased him that would be unconstitutional to  well i think it's important but because of this was i don't i don't think it's just positive because you have two officers on each side and they weren't doing anything threatening they didn't come up and u intimidating language they don't have their guns drawn one officer spoke officer martinez spoke that was the only person who spoke the other officer did not say anything so kind of pointed at me you think that's a that really is suggesting a friendly question any time an officer walks up to me and talks for me i will not feel free to leave maybe prostitution or thank you thank you doctor friend of mine years ago told me the one advantage lawyers have over doctors is that moyers you get the user retrospectively scope