next matter on our calendar is united states versus calvin we've challenges only the district court's denial of his pression motion to speak a little bit louder or get the microphone up a bit more certainly the only issue in this case is whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that mr watching mr weaver he doesn't say that he thought it was something dangerous at all just something but they rely on the fact that he was in a sort of high crime area that when they st saw mr weaver he was looking at their doing he looked back at them as this encounter occurred before we ever got into his car he was said to have a just his pants we don't know what kind of pants he was wearing all we know is he the pants had a that there wasn't any weapon or anything that he said get your i d allowed him to go into his pockets and get his ideas which you know if they had any reason to think that there was a gun right they would did so compliantly and still no bulge was noticed nothing shuck loose there was no additional observation of his pants that would indicate any explanation i mean the district court heard the testimony incredibly said he saw this squirming and pushing down on his pants while he's sitting in the seat in the car as if he was trying to conceal something or something so it wouldn't be visible so what is the so what's engage with a police officer now i know that those two inferences are completely possible and so you have to credit the district court's finding that that it was suggestive of hiding something but again it's the something it's not indicative of a weapon and therefore we don't there's no reason why suspicion gets you nowhere it doesn't get your argument there may have been a reason to believe that there was something he was concealing something but it could have been indicate a gun whereas in other cases there would be a bulge or he was other cases a defendant might reach multiple times for that area adjusted in a way officers said was like they adjusted their own weapons or had seen defense and prior cases  just a weapon nothing like that in this case just mostly was adjusting that was suggestive of hiding something but that something is not about it so he said nothing to suggest that he had a may please the court kareena schoenberger for the united states mr weaver here was not frist based on a mere hunch but a series of specific facts along with officers rational inferences that gave rise to reasonable i mean i get very angry at people who don't signal before of a turn because i usually get enviroment lane because of that but i'm just wondering i mean this seems of things that the government that the police do when they have decided that they want to do something for over reasons and i'm just wondering how often ran for closes the challenge to the stop if in fact there was a traffic violation and there was here the lawfulness of the stop is not disputed in this case and i agree with ok under the supreme court but justifies skepticism all of the factors here need to be viewed together in one big picture and not in isolation and the court should keep in mind that each of these facts need to be viewed in light of the fact that when the police officers pulled over the car the st thing that happened is that a door opened into traffic and the officers believe that someone inside that car was trying to flee and at that point their suspicions were raised before they even approached it will have suspicions about something dangerous the question was not specifically posed to officer tom at the suppression hearing but in the affidavit that the government submitted rather officer thomas admitted the government for the government's case he does say that he suspected it was a gun when he saw mr weaver squirming in his seat pushed out something down into his pants that page sixty of the appendix that he suspected a gun but they still let him i suggest that all three of the times that mr weaver presses his pelvis his waistband up against the car after he's outside the car happen before after mr officer tom starts the pat down that's not correct the st time that mr weaver does it is before officer tom that's that's important because one of the bizarre arguments is that you can justify behavior after a frisked by what three pieces of the record that were before the district court they consisted of officers tom police officer thomas police report his testimony in the county court and also the affidavit that went in again in support conservatives are all against and yet it seems to me that it leads to envy's very difficult decisions any number of cases with save it something is ok they found something and they didn't find it and that's a fact because a person was guilty but suppose ray had found a gun under these very facts this search of a person's underwear when the person is innocent is really a disaster's thing to say and the problem is we're through janeiro but i can't do anything about that the question before the court is whether  fact that articulated here i know and i wonder how much on voles facts i should ignore of a fact that this person turns out to be guilty and ask whether on this of facts kind of search is something we do we want to approve or we want to tell the police don't do it because some time is going to turn out but that isn't not turn up anything but you made somebody take off his pants the court should not be considering the fact that this person is guilty that's not one of the factors that you should be looking at to determine whether it's reasonable suspicion and on the question of whether there was suspicion that he was armed and dangerous all of the furtive movements all of the of asian trying to prevent the frisk are happening at the waistband and it's a commonplace to carry a gun and the officer said again in the affidavit not in his suppression hearing testimony that he saw him pushing down into his pants i thought he was hiding a gun well he says this now but it was equally likely that he thought he was getting drugs that's not what he said he is and if i'm not quite sure what you mean by now i mean in advance of the suppression hearing what he was saying was that he thought that he was hiding a gun if trayvon was the guy and his says he thought he was had a gun but before that he may have thought it was just gross that's true your hon is there enough here to say that a reasonable person in these circumstances would have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous as opposed to just trying to conceal something from the office it's an objective test you can look to the officers  having some difficulty with the district court opinion saying that a different standard was applied i think it would be the same standard to bore elaborates more than federal law does reasonable suspicion standard the same in both courts i agree with you i'm not completely confident that the county court judge applied the correct standard but the county court judges conclusion was there wasn't reasonable suspicion that there was that the to believe that the defendant had committed a crime and therefore they excluded the the evidence so it seems that the judge applied the wrong standard whether or not that was the standard that should been applied there was also a bit of an evidentiary difference it seemed that the county court not didn't have the benefit of some of the evidence that was presented to the federal court one thing even though it was presented to the county court that mr weaver had hitched up his waistband prior to the time they saw him get into the car it seems that the court overlooked that fact in preparing its decision and then at the federal suppression hearing the government was able to put on evidence about more of the details about how mr weaver was moving in the car and officer thomas he was testifying did physical demonstrations for the district court of how mr weaver adjusted her his waist band when he was walking along the street about how he was moving and pushing down his pelvis in the car and about how mr weaver was moving when he was outside of the car and now we have said to fact miss something is a high crime area is irrelevant matter this was proactive and i'm just wondering which way does of a fact that it is proactive in a high crime area cut or doesn't cut it all doesn't make us more sympathetic because they were being proactive or does the fact that they were being proactive make us more skeptical in a crime that's it's very unusual that you find the combination and i haven't seen any discussion should we  be more protective of the police judgment when they're being proactive in a high crime area or should we say if you're being proactive that's dangerous and so we should require more with a general statement  the gang violence task force they were patrolling on the west side of syracuse is described in rather vivid terms as a high crime area and they made a stop that was a lawful stop and as justice and sixty three weaver was directed to the rear of the car to officer makes clear that while he was standing close to the cars standing a few inches away from the car was directed to stand back at that point tom with his affidavit there is a government point with his belief about a weapon he says a weapon on page sixty of the record he never says that at the hearing i don't know unfortunately of time ahead when it when there's suppression hearing just as a technical matter did they consider exposed because the government before had argued that you could i'm very glad to see the government  concede today that you can't do that but i'm just wondering in terms of what happened to the suppression hearing did they consider something that now we're told they could not have considered even over was some evidence before on the basis of which we could have found but what happened there because of the was some evidence which would be enough before but some evidence which it could how do i know what they oh well i think judge son of the who decision i think he made it clear that he relied on both but also made it clear that he thought that everything that preceded what happened outside of the car was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion i think that the government is now saying that as a general matter you can't consider what happens after the st is in this unit but i think they're saying factually there was something that initiated the st pushing up against the car and i'm  evening still light outside they don't weaver is moving from you know walking on the sidewalk or nearly so i walk to a car getting in a car and hussein they talked about you know the car in a high crime area is different than you know stop that occurs outside of a car on foot in a high crime area not sure which way the tense in this case they don't know where we were is coming from so is he just temporarily they're