problems i'm having on my end i had my i t people look at it and they can't figure it out on my end but i do apologize i would prefer to be doing this through video but i do appreciate the accommodation  case that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him and his companion and this case the police from this occurred is quite clear that generic identif such as procmail and geographical and him per proximity to are prone to defense are simply not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion because those descriptors in compas too broad after all the description description of the robbers was they were wearing dark pants and a brown thirty also two black males about ten minutes afterwards an officer saw mr slater and his companion mr caldwell well king about two or three blocks away from where the car came in the officer felt like if they matched that specifically anthony c mr caldwell's clothing it's very clear his pants or their faded light blue jeans they're not dark pants the hoodies and the hoodie but he was wearing it was a great hoodie it's closer to the color why than it is to the color slater which we contend is he had no basis to do so he departed caterers and i think most of them have been summarized in the briefing but they're really quite clear  geographical untempered notes that proximity is not enough and i think that three leading cases are quen welker and cheek and juvenile t k although there are some others that are that are relevant as well  i'd like to briefly kind of address those cases and why the facts of this case are not sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion specifically in question we did have  in the area and this is critical suspicious reaction to the police that is a key fact that distinguishers that basically shows this quote requires mirror than a generic identifier such as white white male it's one of the things you just mentioned was the lack of presence of other pedestrians in the area what's but since in this case of the presence of any other individuals well it occurred about seven thirty in the evening this was a this was a neighborhood there were business establishments around and i believe the opposite for the testimony from the detective testified it would not have been unusual to see black  african american citizens looking around through this area especially at seven thirty pm in the evening now the record is clear however that the arresting officer mr slater and mr caldwell are their very  st people he saw he saw them st so i don't believe you saw any and off at that particular time but again the other detective that testified indicated this is a fairly you know it's not a deserted area it's not a commercial area and given the time of evening it it would not have been unusual to see people walking around in the area so mr maass that there is reason the most suspicion and caldwell what you said earlier you don't think that suspicion in the way you put it was automatically transfers to mr slater could you elaborate on that wall why do you think that reasonable ebit of fire that applied to mr slater are not exist and i guess i was saying nonexistent that a police officer testified he was wearing dark pants but that's it that's dark pants in contrast he's not wearing a hoodie he's wearing instead like a winter coat a padded jacket and i know the government takes issue with that description i read i do address that in my reply brief it's very clear the op a server the st time he frisked mr slater could not feel any firearm on his person but cause is no way it could be confused as a hoodie and all but there are some references to my discourse to shedding clothing specifically i'm thinking green green which involved a case where the suspect was running a black raincoat which he got rid of after the bank robbery this is not a case where you're talking about shedding clothing i mean he's wearing something totally different that was not described and it's simply not not something that could have been shouted my question is related going to your question about whether there's any transfer as you quoted of reasonable suspicion do you think we have to analyze each of the two men separately or are those suspicions as to carwell give the police reason to frisk the companion whether you matches the description or not i think you do you do have to analyze and separately and we think it's critical that he does st caldwell and carlos clear there's no firearm there's no evidence and we don't believe mr slater association and that's what we're talking about here we're association with someone that case for a specific it has to be individualized regarding every you know we're putting people in general or people a specific way i didn't mean there's any question about that i just wondered whether if if they had a reason to believe was one of the mr slater for mr caldwell mr slater's association with mr caldwell who did quite closely matched the description of one of the reported robbers appropriate basis to support reasonable suspicion to stop him as well well you think  stop even if there was no reason to believe he was one of the robbers just because he was with caldwell no i'm not saying that in this case that the reason they had reasonable suspicion to it could stop mr slater as well is because of the report w were entitled to consider their association i gree it would it would be different i think the calculus would be different if there was a report of only one robbery but but here the report was very clear it with two and because op clothing in order to avoid detection and other just the sort of fundamental point here is the standard for reasonable suspicion i think we're not talking about perfect suspicion we're talking about reasonable suspicion after the fact they have more than one but they just need to have a point to specific could you make sure your phone is muted can you hear me better now your honor yes in fact i think there's already been a lot of description about that  street or street lights along the road the stop will be in quotes physical proximity of the crime several blocks away as mr moss pointed out there was within just several several minute period of the crime  slater was not wearing a brown but i think this is part of the totality of the circumstances inquiry but reasonable suspicion has to leave room for the possibility that criminals may change their clothes to avoid detection and as i mentioned i think the opinion in the court's opinion quinn teaches this point clearly other cases that we cited in the brief in the street case in the arthur case also stand for this point just to clarify what what mr slater was wearing i don't think the record shows that he was wearing a mr slater was wearing a dark poppy coat so i'm not going to dispute even though it's not a fact in the record i don't dispute that that's what what he was wearing i don't i don't think it matters because if it's association with cobol and i what he was wearing under the coat he appeared to be wearing dark pants which was inconsistent with the description that ants were by the suspects where about the fact that caldwell was wearing blue jeans and  a jacket is that as mr massey scrapes with his khaki do you think that qualifies who's close enough to a brown hoodie in dark pants absolutely particularly because it was dark outside of the time so in depending on the light i talk about this this notion that there needs to be some suspicious behavior to the officers reasonable suspicion i don't think that's correct at all and in fact in this court decision in juvenile key k there was a dispute back to a dispute over whether the  case from the st circuit in the street from the th circuit so clearly instructed suspicious behavior is not required and that's because officers need to be able to account for the fact that if someone has committed a crime a many purposefully act nonchalant in order to avoid suspicion but i think that the more important point is that when your officers encountered slater in caldwell they sufficiently matched the description in order for them to make a stop and i don't think the officers were required to fully complete a canvas of the potential area before they to rule out any other potential suspects because that would mean they would have needed to let slater in kabul go on their way and it would have been long gone by before the officers finished the canvas so here i think it was reasonable to stop them without evaluating whether there were any other potential suspects in the area you remind me how true the report or after the robbery came the seizure here it was right around ten minutes i think that we don't know exactly record doesn't say exactly what the record shows is that the nine  backup so right around ten minutes i think it is a f that the court has any other questions i would ask the court to a well we're not hearing you mr maass we're seeing you're still connected but we're not hearing you so you one more try your microphone still shows that you're on mute so we cannot hear you if you are president and wish to make rebuttal please turn your microphone off and we'll hear