tensions and arrests the ledge basis for the hunch was the fact that mr couldn't have been sent to was wearing a fanny pack and was holding the bottom of that fanny pack this into injunction with his non response to a farcical question major mall in the city of kabul which is a city of on hundred fifty thousand people and a municipality that covers approximately fifty eight square miles the vehicle immediately pulled to the side of the road once the officers activated their emergency equipment  participated in the sump itself allowing one to approach the driver while the second was able to provide cover for the occupants of the vehicle the vehicle had its windows down providing a clear view of the interior of the vehicle occupants as i mentioned three divisions were in the car however one of which was a minor who was under the age of sixteen one of the officers approached the driver and asked for his license and registration while the other kept the watch of the other two individuals in the car the driver came to the inform the officer that he didn't have his license provided a vehicle registration and his name so security number and address none of the superior intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics in any way his lab would be holding it will remember he's sitting in a vehicle and so for one to place their hands while sitting in a vehicle while wearing a fanny pack to place them on the fanny pack itself is a natural location for the placement of the hand why would you while you're on it if you're holding something in there that's deserving of protection and it may be a cell phone and maybe a wallet and maybe keys and maybe prescription medication baby go to and but that's a distinction shirt and your are specifically founded to district court heard in inferring that that item that was in the front portion of the hooded sweatshirt was indeed a dangerous weapon and so that same rationale would apply here just because somebody is holding something holding something in a fanny pack and clutching the bottom of it does it it's not reasonable to infer that that item is indeed a and weapon of any sort but is it reasonable for a police officer in that situation to be alerted to not know what's in the fanny pack to be alerted to the possibility that it could hold something dangerous until other things have been ruled out or and unless there's further none suspicious conduct is it is it reasonable for the police officer to be on alert at that point i think you're gonna hit the nail on the head with with the phrase not suspicious conduct if we had something more like this court has found martinez in suarez this isn't reasonable for a police officer seeing the hand covering the fanny pack to wonder whether something's being hidden yes because i don't think it will it automatically follows that whatever's being gra automatically a dangerous weapon is it unreasonable not to rule that out at that point i would not asking you whether he's got reasonable suspicion i'm asking you whether he's acting on reasonable to take into account what he saw that factor there so if we move on from there the next thing the office series did was stay at the man if he had a license to carry a firearm and the man kind of looks down and in a sense could be understood as acknowledging that he did have a firearm that it was unlicensed and that at that point then increases the officer's  that he may get shot out but the other thing it is given other bases to believe that the law has involved because he's carrying and unlicensed  bought what happens before i know you and i think it best actually be considered a non response i think the nature of the question needs to be examined too because any answer that question would be viewed as incriminating by the officer if mr cardona says yes he has a firearm and he's going to be frisked because he has a firearm if he says no he has a firearm and it's unlicensed and he's going to be frisked if he says nothing at all that he's of a severe suspicious and will be subjected to a frisk  despite not not answering the question which is what happened here the value of that in the equation is negligible because all he did was simply not answer the question and that you can judge he looked down he nodded his head in a way his head in a corner the officer shook it as if to say no so i don't think there's a nothing there that would would lend itself to a reasonable suspicion that individual is armed especially during the character and contents of that question which doesn't really provide for a correct answer that's that's what the record states your honor but i would submit your honor that his non response of that question now is shaking a head a non response what would what should a reasonable officer take shaking their head to mean one thing shaking the head means another thing doesn't it well i think luring laura in the head and she can either implies you don't want to talk you don't have anything to say i don't think you can automatically it's unreasonable to think that shaking the head means no especially given the question and he asked the driver for his driver's license the driver told him that his driver's license was suspended at that point the officer knew that there were two violations of the law occurring he was mindful that there had been shoot outs at traffic stop congress in the past and therefore he observed safety protocols he went around the rear of the vehicle to take down the vehicles information as is standard in issuing a ticket he took down the license plate number at the rear of the car made points that he was not in the direct line of vision of the occupants of the vehicle to minimize any danger to himself and others after you took down the license plate number in the back you moved around to the side to take on the my betty number front windshield and that's on the passenger side of the front windshield the windows were rolled down and he observed that if that defendant cardona was nervous and sweaty and this is despite the fact that  was not being cited for any infringements on and he also noticed that the cardona grips the fanny pack in a manner which in the officers fifteen years of experience on the job was consistent with him holding a weapon  the officer at that point reacted very calmly and kept the time conversational and asked the individual do you have a permit for that weapon the individual responded with a non verbal negative and this is  of the record clearly he was asked do you have a permit for that weapon or a weapon i can check on that you're on i'm not sure if he used the word  or do we have to determine that there was a reasonable suspicion justifying a terry stop before he asked the question he already had two violations of the law at the point where he observed the individual being nervous and sweaty and asked him if he had a  he said it was normal maybe to be nervous but it wasn't just that it was that he also are the had to violations of the law that he had uncovered this is an area where he was being careful because there were shootouts in the past he had not only observed that the individual is nervous and sweaty but he also observed that individual grabbed the fanny pack in a manner which in his experience was consistent with there being a weapon inside and then at that point he asked a question injured vidual said he did not so the officer testified that he knew at that point that there was another violation of the law explained that had the individual answered that yes he had a permit there would not be a violation of the law and now he's on another heightened alert and heightened alert that there is a third violation of  law so he asks the individual to exit the vehicle and he testifies that as he does so he's using the door as a shield for his own protection and protection of the people around him and in the vehicle just in case the individual flees or makes some unexpected movement so the individual exits the car and the officer takes the opportunity to touch the pennypacker to confirm that there is a gun inside and it's important to note that he touches only the fanny pack he does not frisk the individuals argue that he had me simple suspicion at the point where cardona makes a negative response to the question do have a permit and also he had probable cause at that point to arrest because individuals just admitted that he's committed a crime to ask you a situation is there any testimony about the appearance of the fanny pack once he's accepted the car that would suggest that there might be a weapon in it once he sets it in the car yes there is no testimony on the record about that ok what the officer is only the admission by the defendant if he sees the defendant as it's a grabbing the thing i can imagine which he says in his fifteen years experience is consistent with there being a weapon inside and in addition i know that your hono gun in a holster and cash but didn't you say there's no testimony about how what the appearance was that is correct there is no testimony on the record however there is testimony that the officer made the judgment that based on his experience there was a weapon inside at the there was a suppression hearing yes it was a suppression hearing it was the was the firearm inside the fanny pack at any point you know cyanide aware of that but i can tell from the questions thank you touched the fanny pack he didn't then state you have a weapon in there and get the response yes according to the district court's opinion your honor he touches the fanny pack felt the fire and quote asked her don't know whether there was a firearm in the fanny pack  and so that would be the second question which would then indicate that he's acting upon a hunch he's asking two questions one whether or not there's a license for a firearm and then to whether or not there's even a firearm in the fanny pack it