think you mean the rule is part of magic or the application of that the pressure of the rule is problematic because i think that to look at the totality of the circumstances one can look at what the police officers i talk ran is real simple even if it's civil if it's a traffic or parking violation good enough and they can stop the person and here the judge said there are four things that used parked in a towing zone it was a neighborhood where there was a lot of drug and prostitution activity that sort and he saw a rapid movement in the car that he thought he claimed but it did use the word civil it did that that was decked out in fact in red and that was a drug case and the even picked it when it's the united states supreme court we tend to take it seriously yes but the holding was the officers had probable cause to believe that the question of the traffic code specifically the traffic violations involved there was a wrong it was a turn without signaling an unreasonable speed so it's very clear there that there were traffic violations involved and the state law ninety days in jail but it is a civil wrong that the police have the responsibility to enforce that's true isn't it yes under control of the regular theories  other states have decided that that you don't need all the elaborate criminal procedures to enforce traffic citations they've opted for an administrative mechanism for right for collecting fines then in forcing fines and mail the registered owner but what if what does it matter i mean the idea is if there's a traffic violation the idea is to control when police are involved or you and when they just have to let you go around or go  business on molested and if it's a traffic violation whether it's civil or criminal whether you get a ticket or a summons or you have to go to court and they arrest you whatever it is being stopped interfere with it well i think there is an and the difference relates to our privacy rights and the difference relates to when the fourth amendment should apply to protect people when there are criminal violations at issue where a person can be detained or arrested the fourth amendment comes into play to protect us when there civil violations that don't lead to an arrest it means that the police should not have the power until the lady who is driving until until the lady who is driving turned out not to have a valid license and registration they were fine i agree and that the police found that out after the detention occurred here the detention occurred and they discovered about her or her warrants after this set of facts they come  e being on the car and they see her in movement like anybody else people in the car are startled i thought this was not just a place where teenagers go to a park i thought it was a bad neighborhood where there's a lot of drugs and prostitution i'll address that in a moment after putting a light on and seeing the removing of whoever it is sitting up they immediately put their overhead lights on which by california law is a detention because you legally cannot leave so those are the circumstances that led to the detention in terms of the whether or not that was a high crime area there was no i believe there was no competent evidence of that there was a there was evidence but you don't think was competent i don't think there was enough of that to satisfy the law sandoval for example says that war stories aren't enough here you had nothing but the conclusion of the police officers there was no test and i don't get why that's a problem i mean i walked to the courthouse in the morning from my hotel in the union square area i know perfectly well when i'm into the high crime area anybody does what the cases say that the court needs to have just those geologists to tell me that once i get east of it once i get to the six three dariya i have entered a high high crime area well the cases say that you need more than a conclusion because we don't know except of the officers testimony whether this is a high crime area or not when you're walking down sixty three you were observing a lot of facts and you have specific experiences and knowledge that leads you to that conclusion the court needs to know those things to make that determination here and all the court had was a conclusion restatement by the officer we wish to challenge it we were not given an evidentiary hearing in the court even articulated its belief that it was not an objective standard that needed to be applied but that th subject of stating the officers was enough to satisfy her and that's one under the law is there some california law stopping these a person who is committing one of these traffic violations that civil that is to say i can the police officer stop the person and give him the ticket and is that permissible or is there any california law about the law that we cited i think it was forty twenty of the vehicle code says specifically with respect to these the parking violation and tollways on that we're talking about here on the missile code what the officers do is if there is a person present and the person leaves they are acted by the statute not to make  parking violation had occurred yes so they had a right to put a ticket on they have they had a right that meant that they had a right to investigate that parking violation and it's quite clear that under the municipal code of san francisco that they have the authority issue parking tickets and the vehicle code for you and of course you could also give the cities and counties the authority to hire little parking civilian parking type people who go around the little white cars and issue parking citations but the police have the same authority as well but the only thing is what happens is once the cops once the police in force that traffic violation are parking violation the penalty is different it's a only have a right to do is walk over to the car put a ticket under the windshield wiper that would mean i have a right to go up to the car and put a ticket under the windshield wiper now i would think that if it's nighttime they could do it with a flashlight and i would think that if the driver says whoa i don't want to get a ticket and he pulls out of there fast and starts driving away the cop can say you don't get out of a ticket that is fine and go and catch him  for the vehicle called addresses that california vehicle code addresses that indicates that if a person appears and moves the vehicle with the officer is to do in my recollection is the language of that section is shall mail the the ticket to the registered owner so that is by california law with the officer supposed to do under th a basically what we're saying is the totality of the circumstances has to run it should run both ways if you're going to look beyond merely the that the parking violation as the basis for the staff then the fact that when spotlight is put on the occupants of the car into these circumstances and they're startled that's not a hurried movement that's because of problems like the way or the california legislature to repeal the criminal traffic code for quote criminal offense what led them to do that you know well not beyond the legislative history that we quoted in our grease which basically said there was a legislative determination by the california legislature that these offenses were too minor to be dealt with by criminal  procedures and that was the legislative determination which we're all bound to follow but they didn't say police officers couldn't enforce well remember traffic ticket they did promulgating are parking tickets yeah they did promulgated specific section that tells law enforcement around well but there's a legal effect when they put on the light bar that's attention because under california law at that point you cannot leave so what i'm saying is under the totality of the circumstances once a light is put on people under these circumstances her movements are no mor please the court my name is there and i represent the united states i would like to address the issues of the reasonable suspicion for the stop as well as the investigative stop for the parking violation judge hamilton did not  ruling that based on totality of circumstances there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle the district court judge and to found you know quote so we have not only the illegal parking we have the flight the attempted flight the jesters movements observed by the officers and the officers knowledge of the area four factors you address the issue the spotlight what was this but with the spotlight the spotlight was basically to illuminate to be able after they saw it was legally parked that's not it that's not a show of authority that's not a short story that's an investigative tool to see if there are occupants of when the stop is similar to when somebody sees an officer and officer stop police they run the seizure doesn't take place until the very actually apprehend them exactly is that right yes that's correct i would think that if you know the police code and i'll stress that the traffic section of the musical quote says that there is a civil penalty for that as well and the language of section thirty two talks about any person violating any of the class of resolutions now or here and after in effect which are referred to in the following subsections of the section shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction shall be subject to this penalties providing that particular section in this particular section for hitting parking on any street or alley in san francisco it's a fine of not less than twenty dollars or more than one hundred dollars so in that case people be heart where they actually said an officer may detain and cite a person for violating the a code the maximum penalty there was a civil penalty here it's a simple t as well and based on that case there was a right for the officers to stop detain in order to  but let me ask you something about the neighborhood my first impression when i started reading the case was police were just amusing themselves by rousting teenage kids who were parking but then my second impression was this is a bad neighborhood and they think this is the kind of place where crime will be afoot what was he evidence for the bad neighborhood well what we have is the declaration of the officer and his knowledge of the area when they patrol the area that night is essentially a one one street that leads up to a park in bernal heights and hills and are your voice keeps trailing off at the end of the sentence so i missed the end of each sentence i apologize your hon the knowledge of the officer that evening was based on his experience in the area did just show me the words we need in his declaration which is at excerpt number twenty two  in the words that the officer uses in this declaration at starting at page one line twenty seven bernal heights is the neighborhood within the san francisco ingleside police station district stolen vehicles are often recovered in this isolated area is known to the public and officers assigned to the ingleside police station as an area where people park their vehicles in order to engage in sexual activities drink alcohol and use narcotics the similar language was used in his report which consensual or nonconsensual activities that's why i said sorry that's right those are not legal and the narcotics the use of narcotics clearly is not illegal and  public sometimes legal sometimes not  and the suspicious movements that they saw the hurried movements i think aligned with what they thought might be going on i thought it was a good neighborhood i would think those teenagers just get undressed fast that could be the case your hon r and in that case just you could just be startled and they could be startled but as the supreme court has held innocent explanations for one of each of these factors that the judge hamilton cited below violation and it wasn't reasonable it wasn't even they didn't have there was a clear parking violations after ten o'clock parked in and no parking in or improper parking to that's correct or not correct and they could have stop soley on that the district could you respond to the argument your adversary made that if the police observe a parking violation and the person moved out i imagine that happens all the time you see a cop going down the street giving tickets to the people who've been there more than two away that that statue is silent to it and this vehicle actually never did completely drive away because the officer was able to take it before it did however that statute is a little ambiguous as coun writing a parking ticket i think just as reference to someone who in those little carts that issue tickets as well i think they're actually considered issuing officers well and they're not justified in making a stop of a vehicle based on a perceived traffic violation they write their citations and if they're in the middle of writing a citation the car speeds off their instructor just mail it to them however in this case it's a little different these were law enforcement officers not just issuing officers in a small car and the vehicle that they were going to cite had not they're not going to write a citation as yet they had just gotten out of the car the car  and attached to that also in the appellate brief he mentions a code that that vehicle also violated which is a misdemeanor which is evading officers after that the rights of the vehicle had already been a limited they case the violation in that case is parking or driving on a sidewalk and it was a california vehicle code california vehicle code traffic violation california vehicle code section twenty two five hundred began to ask a question or two so i served would you speak to me about something or could i say something to you and they in part that's what they were doing here right well they didn't more than that honor i believe because what they did after seeing the parked car was dark it was at night and you see any movement they put their spotlight on it and they saw hardly movement at that point i contend they made attention they put on their their light bar and that's attention at that point they if they had chosen to do something else we would have a different set of circumstances get out of the car and walk over there then they walk over to the other car from the police car after they get into the order detain these people yes they did i mean you say that turning all of the li california law when they turn on the light doesn't read your detained because you can't leave and they could have been for a different thing they could have walked out of that they did leave i mean if you say stop the from the guy don't stop they haven't stopped him yeah well they she slowly know on the spot i was just fine yeah and if the officers had chosen to get out of their car walk up with their flashlights to the vehicle and take a look that way as his owner suggested i think that would have been fine but they didn't before they had reasonable suspicion they detained they gave an order you may believe and and under the totality the circumstances which i believe should be looked at in both ways not only factors pointing towards criminal behavior but factors that are completely consistent with innocence the totality of the circumstances showed two young people in a dark area together in a car and with with i believe your honor without showing without a showing in court that this was a high crime area and an officer can violate people's fourth amendment rights under those circumstances otherwise we run into a situation where reasonable suspicion begins to become used as a catch phrase for just destroying people's privacy rights if the officers can come up with any articulable any thing that they can say doesn't have to be reasonable and because i don't think they were reasonable circumstances here it's some reason that they can come up with some reasons then people's privacy rights disappear so i think there has to deal be a list a balanced view of what's real suspicion of a crime and what is not thank you c