clothing to discover weapons that might be used against officers but only when they reasonably suspect you know vigils armed and presently dangerous evidence gathering is not a lawful basis for a frisk moreover whether the frisk is lawful is a separate question from whether any stop was lawful even if the officers reasonably suspected the individuals involved in criminal activity they can only frisk him for weapons if they also reasonably suspect he was armed and presently dangerous courts applied objective standard to determine  risk on the other hand offs are subjective beliefs regarding the safety of the situation or relevance of the else if the officer subjectively fear for their safety the seizure is more likely to be found reasonable if they did not subjectively fear for their safety  seizure is less likely to be reasonable especially in cases where officers essentially acknowledged that they had no reason to believe a defendant was armed what do we have here terms with so that in the also in this case when it's nothing he never said he was feared for his facts known to the officers at the time indicated that a woman in jasmine watts was sleeping on her couch she woke up at three twenty nine am saw a man shirtless cellphone like that or the man left the room immediately she never saw him again half an hour earlier officer subsequently found the border of an open convenience store about a mile away or was doing nothing illegal when the officer spotted him according to their testimony he was walking towards the truck up counter or standing in line if something or to the officers one park quarter saw in porter's case there was no report of a weapon nor word of any threat in the actual violence and also back indicated he had no information that he was looking for non suspect in stables the officers initiated a frisbee because the defendant reached for his pocket or moved his hand around his that everything was fine when he grabbed porter because the officers did not reasonably suspect water was armed and dangerous went back grabbed him and initiated the weapon search let's visit we seasoned border violence in the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures you may respond was a matter of you know this is kind of weird he said he's walking it's raining out he's walking in the rain really no there is no indication that other point proximity to a crime scene and they fit the description of the perpetrator then you know perhaps they don't have the right to be walking down that street without  he starts backing up but he's not seized at that point they haven't given him any commands or communicated with him in any way he's perfectly easy to use all honorable officers from i don't know why he backed up i know that he was free to go on his way at that point though until the officers in some way communicate with him he's free to go on his way and i'd like to point out it's not you know we're not talking about headlong flight here i mean he when he was facing the wrong direction but also he wasn't running fast enough for this to be  when he sees the police officer pull up suddenly at the convenience store and again as far as officer beck possibly grabbing him forcefully enough that he could never break free to gain control there was no testimony from back that in a headlock and again we don't know the precise nature of the lock we know it was really strong at least from the other off this is a difference if it's stronger not strong i think the stronger it gets the more unreasonable of the cons and it was apparently but it is reasonable i think mr rather was has to be reasonable under the circumstances i don't see the circumstances in this case that would have indicated it was reasonable for officer back to grab him suddenly and forcefully in that manner he was complying with officer pressed instructions officer back could have told him you know go up against the wall or something he could have said anything to him he didn't testify clearly i grabbed him and placed him in a locked comma conducting impact down of him for weapons for officer safety purposes on thing that indicated objective when he was about to run maybe we'd be talking about something different he testified or did when he asked one of walked out the door and i think saying normal game because there's nothing about it this is actually