what we have here is several officers on alcohol were his detail there in a high volume student housing area right next to the campus of illinois state university one of the officer sees a young black ma walks to a car with a laptop inside the trunk of the car now she also radios into other police in the area to tell her what tell them what she had observed so two other officers that were on a detail with her officers no one option drudge and then the police asked to search the trunk again and can't seem to continue to evade the questions and said that the car in the laptop along to track the officers testified that they took this as a refusal that trial right the suppression hearing then the police ran the license plate on the car and it turned out that it belonged to cancer and they confronted him with that and then they asked again and they said can we look at the laptop in the in the trunk and they see got a defeated look kind of shrugged his shoulders and said yeah go ahead when they open the trunk they found a laptop they also saw an x box so the first time they saw an x box should point the police had no reports of a stolen x box you know or at that time they seized both items the laptop and the x box and they put them in the evidence a day later that day discovered that the x seizing x box was outside the scope of consent and there was no problem off to support that seizure as to my first argument i'd like to draw the court's attention to first off to just some of the language and people versus terry to grow a span in two thousand and seven some of those factors include the age intelligence education of the person whether or not they were advised of their constitutional rights how long they were detained was their consent immediate prompted by repeated requests and whether or not they are very close hence he's concerned it was not voluntary the reason it was not voluntary was because this encounter with the police started as a consensual encounter and we can see that in our brief but immediately he was effectively season out free to leave he was eighteen years old he was on a college campus hook and he was caught underage drinking voluntary consent has to be born of someone's free will since he testified no he did not so when you say that the officers on revealed believe that he was not free leave was obvious this is not a stretch absence of his first warning to that effect you're right i believe that it was obvious in the sense that if you're eighteen years old you're on a college campus and you've been drinking and now there's seven police officers around you that you're not really where they are around here or were they there in the general area and perhaps most of them were dealing with some other people there were other the talk of officer garcia and they talk further still again and that those five officers on the plainclothes how calm force the detail were there in addition officer garcia testified that she brought him in front of a uniformed police officer swat are those the colleen mitchell i believe so in total there are seven police officers in the area he's dealing with at least two talking to them first hand talking to one of the other install again and that's when the initial search happen so we would argue that i would argue that you know i'm going to cherry this of course you consider this the settling course of questions that he was in or vulnerable state he was drunk he was under age his rejection of that request can you rephrase that question yes there was a little bit awkward and i think i could do better  your honor i would say and this would that be i would say in this situation that he is see he's not he is what he's effectively not really the police officers testified he was not really well that again that's a that's a different question really goes you know told the police we have no evidence record he didn't testify that that was the case we don't know what would have happened if he had walked away so i think it best that this moment the record is unclear maybe an argument but i don't know that this thank you or persuasive value let's assume for the moment that he was not under  that's really my question why yes the thing that should come bill continue to respect that should should he now that he's learned ones that are respectful should be soon now the police are going to be respectful of and i'm i don't i don't know whether question him i think that an eighteen year old there in that situation would not have felt free to leave i just don't believe that but i'd like to get my second argument that counsel below is ineffective for not arguing other again the police officers asking we look at the laptop in the trunk they open the trunk and they see an x box and they seized both items and they had no reports of a stolen x box or laptop they had a hunch that the laptop could have been stolen and so based on that hunch they saw another item of value next to it and they seized that item for further inspection it wasn't until they later that they actually found out that the x box cause to seize the x box for further inspection and that's what i relied on arizona to be hicks where there they went to a home there was a new shiny stereo equipment which is kind of similar here officer testified that the x box and a laptop were new and shiny here in this very environment and in hicks the police moved the stereo equipment just a few inches to look at the serial numbers and the supreme court said that that was  search for fourth amendment purposes and then it was not supported by probable cause and there they were inside the house on a warrant here i would argue the same thing that even assuming that he did valid consent once they open the laptop or once they open the trunk inside the laptop in there they didn't have probable cause to seize any you know items of value there were also in the trunk it's very commonplace for an eighteen year old to have a gaming system in the trunk of his car especially now on a saturday night this suppression motion was all about the consent they testified to all the steps leading up to let's assume the concern let's assume a trial court those who were to find the concern to be that would that was an involuntary think of any other facts that would have come out of trial that officer why did you get the x box about that question what's the answer to they they testified to everything leading up to the question of can we look at the unanswered questions here why shouldn't we just the firm and say go ahead and file you see where all of this can be litigated then in addition will have then trial counsel explaining what he did and why he did it or why he didn't do what d addition i think this is similar to henderson let me give you one reason why is because if not better than henderson because there henderson the court said that the trial court will allow defense counsel considerable leeway in her examination of officers staking and brophy listening the type of testimony that would have been elicited at a suppression hearing here we have a suppression hearing i think that this there is enough facts here there is not only the testimony of suppression hearing from officers or see an officer still he also concern to a search yes ok yes that person can give legitimate consent the argument is bad kids he was in a vulnerable state he was not free to leave the other argument is that this was there was a seamless transition that went from considerable counter to not free to leave and it's in that kind of murky place that we're arguing that some of these other factors such as the seven circuit decision and this court's language that the vulnerable state of the senate can be considered is that this core should look to kids ages eighteen years old he was in its high volume student housing area next to a college campus he was surrounded by seven police officers and based on those factors your honor i think that there's enough of order them around we don't have any of that here counsel keeps harping on seven officers and here they're in the area he only dealt with officer shawl and that's it that's the only but the license plate for not only by the way this is your car because bags can find them with that says hey this is your car can we can look in the car yeah go ahead i mean that that is clearly a or whether there was even in fact a concern that's a perfectly reasonable decision now on facts as just a side note of facts that are not of the record everything stopped as far as the test  once they testified to finding the x box that computer in the truck there is no testimony as to which officer took possession of items there is no testimony as to why the officers because of the items there's no testimony there's no indication on the part of krakow question why he chose lack of consent rather the lack of probable cause i think this team is the police officer's walks down the street with down goes with car was the computer in the trunk of the car police officer come up to talk to the sis computer what computer i don't have a computer i didn't put contraband or suspicious other than the fact that this is a high crime area we have a defendant who's acting suspiciously and repeatedly lying to the police  right why wouldn't you know it's one thing to say well i didn't file a motion to suppress because i didn't think there was a basis to argues for suppression but here he be the basis for doing that assuming the concert was well but we also don't know what was in the police reports that the trial counsel had to fund him which undoubtedly would have had more information that this court has before right now  what was done and why was done or whether the fed it was question about the x box after it was discovered we don't know that we don't know we don't know even what the defendant has possessed reclaimer standing to challenge the seizure please just want to point out one thing that was pointed out in my reply brief and which is to hear your argument just a clarification that we did not argue that this was an unlawful seizure under somebody in custody give voluntary consent right yes they can and i don't think i did not say that they could not new york or grow the night i might have misunderstood what your argument was and i appreciate your clarification  litigant it's going to be piecemeal litigation there's a possibility of multiple appeals getting all the way to the third stage of the insurer hearing where this court i think you'd be in much better use of judicial connelly's to remain under stuart  for a new suppression hearing in addition i do believe that this case is similar to henderson that this court has all the facts it needs in front of it to decide this case right here on direct appeal