testimony that mr clark had come into the trailer had seen the officer stopped in his tracks becoming our best and when asked about what is in the bag turned and elbowed the officer with his elbow and then fled from the factual findings with respect to what happened after that time that those facts were contested as reflected in the government's brief they contend that mr clark was swinging and fighting the officers we contended that mr clar said she heard mr clarke mumbled something that audible the officer then leaned forward and said why don't you come on in within seconds he has shoved mr clark over a railing falling backwards down to the hard concrete floor in order to make that initial stop that officer needed to have individualized suspicion that mr karr was committing a crime or about to commit a crime in order to search the facts they needed to know that mr to have approaches a person in a public area and ask them for identification and a ticket most of those cases arise in the airport for the sentence but all of the cases every single one of them makes clear that it has to be clear to the individual that he is free to leave that is not the case here mr miss verney was not free to leave mr parks was not through the legal you're saying in terms of my question you're saying that the ultimate arrest was proper and not because the original anything to the extent your honor is going to consider anything that happened afterward and justify this incident to an arrest based upon the conduct once he has been shoved over the railing i would suggest that credibility assessment and the district court is in the best position because he saw the witnesses he heard the testimony and he is in the best position to make that assessment regarding what happened what happened after he was shoved over the railing was he resisting if he was resisting was it reasonable did he intend to inflict harm upon the officer did he actually inflict harm upon the officer  sees and the answer was original question is that there have been no findings as to whether there was probable cause to arrest him ultimately provide this ultimately arrest that's correct your honor and i would also suggest to your honor's believe that mr that the district court was correct that there was reasonable suspicion to stop mr clarke that does not get you into the facts terry simply how under oath i can find certain carefully defined circumstances that an officer can conduct a pat down in the interest of safety but you always need individualized suspicion that that person is about to commit a crime or is committing a crime in order to get into the facts you have to have individualized suspicion that that into the bags the government's argument in that respect rests upon the assumption that because the officer had a lot of experience that she absolutely would have felt the weapon in the bag and and and given that could open it number one if you didn't do that he just went into the bag and opened it number two there is no evidence regarding the texture of the bag the feel of the bag the weight of the bags that is not in the record the prosecutors certainly you know with the history of firearms and gun play both the history that an officer been fired at that location the fact that the owner of that trailer had been shot in the back the last time i was there six weeks earlier in conjunction with all the drug activity possible i don't i guess i would argue that it's not necessary based on the factual record it's clear that mr clarke physically confronted the officers the officers who were a little working under their lawful authority to conduct was hazed that it occurred right where that x is that used in conjunction with his court of affray here illustrates how close in proximity we're talking maybe four to five feet away in addition once he dropped the facts were to be intentional or accidental his efforts at that point were to get away to run away and if you look at the lengths that he went to try to get away from the officers from the trailer from his facts and if you look at the defense case which