[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
The next case for argument is United States versus in Council whenever you're ready all right

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, Peter Walkenshaw on behalf of the United States.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal and I will do my best to watch my time.

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
The officers in this case were confronted with a suspect parked in his car in a red zone just off the Las Vegas Strip.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
In that car, he had an unsecured gun within arm's reach.

[00:00:48] Speaker 03:
When the officers asked him about that gun, he lied to them.

[00:00:52] Speaker 03:
This is the kind of moment that the Supreme Court has recognized is the most fraught with danger for officers conducting traffic stops.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
The moment in which contraband or evidence of a more serious crime is discovered and the suspect might be motivated to resist apprehension with violence.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
This court has found, held rather, that officers may use reasonable precautions so that they can conduct their investigations safely.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
And in this case, it was eminently reasonable for the officers to handcuff Mr. N while they were conducting their investigation shortly after he lied to them about the gun that was just inside his unlocked car.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
Had he not lied about the gun, would your position be different?

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
Well, I think events certainly would have unfolded differently, Your Honor.

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
I think Officer Anderson... Let me put it this way.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
That was not artful on my part.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
Let's say events unfolded the exact same way, but he never lied.

[00:01:48] Speaker 02:
The officer never asked the question, is there a gun in the car, for instance, but they still handcuffed him.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to get at how important is that lie

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
the decision of the officers in your view.

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
I do think it's quite important your honor I think had he not lied I think it still might be a difficult case given the immediate accessibility of the gun but in this case

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
Officer Anderson testified that typically lawful gun possessors tell officers that there is a gun in the car to mitigate safety concerns.

[00:02:18] Speaker 03:
In this case, the fact that he not only remained silent about it but lied about it suggests something of a guilty mind.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
Now in the district court's initial order granting the motion to suppress,

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
There's a fair amount of discussion about the fact that Inn didn't reach for the gun or didn't make furtive movements to conceal it and therefore the officers somehow had no reason to be concerned about that possibility and the government submits it.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
That's just plainly wrong.

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
Suspects are not required and often do not give prior indication that they are going to resist arrest.

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
And so for the officers to take it on faith that some sort of signal is going to be given ahead of time beyond

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
The ins dishonesty about the gun itself, I think is just unreasonable.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
What is the relevance of the fact that gun wasn't holstered and where it was located, just sort of strewn about with clothes.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
It sounds like, um, does that matter?

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
I think it does your honor in so far as all in would had to, would have to do where he's still seated in the car or were you to gain access to the passenger compartment is just reach for the gun.

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
He wouldn't have to take it out of a locked gun box as the officers testify lawful gun owners often possess their guns in.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
He wouldn't have to unholster it.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
He just needed to get it to hand as far as they knew.

[00:03:37] Speaker 03:
And that I think substantially elevates the danger presented by this immediately accessible firearm.

[00:03:43] Speaker 04:
Would it even be possible, once he was removed from the car, I was looking at the video and the officer was just holding him by one hand.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
Do you think it's even possible that he could access the gun even outside the car?

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
Well, I think that's a question we address a little bit.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
I think it is unreasonable, I think, your honor, to rely on these officers' ability to physically overpower in.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
If he made the decision, I'm going to go for it.

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
I might get arrested.

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
I mean, at this point, in knows.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
He's not a lawful gun possessor, and he's potentially subject to arrest and prosecution.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
And that's the kind of moment, again, the Supreme Court says, suspects may be motivated to try and get out of going to prison in moments like this.

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
We certainly acknowledge that the removal of in from the car was an important safety measure, as the Supreme Court has held.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
Officers can do just a matter of fact under Pennsylvania versus MEMS.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
But saying, as the district court did, that this eliminated all risk of ingoing for this gun and accessing it, I think is unreasonable.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
And I think it's particularly unreasonable in light of the fact that we were so close to a heavily trafficked tourist area, and these officers were on bicycles.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
How far was the strip?

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
I saw the video, too, but I can't remember what the record says.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I apologize.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
I don't have, I believe something like 50 feet, but I apologize.

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
I don't have a number.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
But your view is if a firearm was discharged in that direction, you could have seen a stream of pedestrians in the background in the video, which I think was, as the officers testified, was a front of mind concern throughout this encounter.

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
Can I ask, is the significance of being so close to the strip that protection of innocent bystanders or the fact that he could run away and flee in a big crowd?

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
I think both, Your Honor.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
I think the case law does speak to handcuffs of precautionary measure can mitigate the risk of a suspect's flight or his use of violence.

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
I think as a practical matter,

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
The thought that a gun could be discharged and an innocent bystander struck is probably the thing that most officers are most worried about, you know, in their mission to protect the public.

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
And so I think that certainly the testimony reflects that that was the front of mind concern.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
I mean, N certainly could have run as well, and that is a concern as well.

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
But if N had gotten away, that wouldn't be the same sort of tragedy that an innocent bystander being struck with a bullet would be.

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
And does it make a difference?

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
These officers are on bike and I take it by bike that they actually mean peddled bikes.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
Yes, yes, yes.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
These are bicycle bicycles, right?

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, as opposed to.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
In other words, let's say they could have put him in a squad car.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
What would that have done to the analysis?

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
Well, there's there's there's two different things that the squad car makes difference of that are reflected in the officer's testimony.

[00:06:28] Speaker 03:
One, the officers did testify that, you know, they themselves are more vulnerable when they're on bicycles.

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
They can't take cover behind a squad car.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
If a suspect tries to break away in a car, that's a concern for them.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
But I do think it is also, like your honor said, if a suspect can be placed in a squat car, that's a more secure position.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
Perhaps he could be left in there without being handcuffed and would have sort of a requisite amount of distance and obstacles between himself and the firearm that the officers might be more comfortable conducting the investigation that way.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
That just simply wasn't an option here.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
I see I am approaching.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
Yeah, why don't we see judge cool.

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
Do you have any questions?

[00:07:13] Speaker 04:
No questions.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
Well, why don't you reserve the rest?

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
I'll reserve the remainder.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
Lauren Tory on behalf of Appellee Mr. Larry N. In this case, officers made a de facto arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
We're asking that this Court affirm the District Court's ruling granting suppression.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
Here in this case, the circumstances involved a routine traffic stop for parking in a red zone and a broken taillight.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
This encounter does not involve any special circumstances within this court's precedent that justifies intrusive measures that were used.

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
Council, I have a question for you on that.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
Isn't it a special circumstance if a person is uncooperative?

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
In instances, there are some cases that are cited in the briefing that relate to individuals or suspects who are not compliant or combative.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
We don't have that here in this case.

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
Here, Mr. In, as the district court found, was fully compliant.

[00:08:37] Speaker 00:
When the officers asked him to keep his hands up, he did.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
When they asked him to exit the car, he did.

[00:08:41] Speaker 00:
He was calm.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
There were no furtive movements.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
He did not present a physical threat or risk of flight.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
But when he lies to the police officer about not having a gun in the car, does that make him not corrupt?

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
Not in this case, Your Honor.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
Here, the district court properly found that the only instance of a clearly false response came after the use of handcuffs.

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
The other statement that was made by Mr. N when asked, are there any weapons in the car before handcuffs were used, was not clear.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you, let's say we disagree with that.

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
I mean, I've watched the video, and I have a hard time.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
I can understand there's a question as to whether he said it twice before he was handcuffed, as I think the government argued at one point.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
But to me, it's really clear he said it at least once before.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
he was handcuffed, that he lied to the police.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
And I don't think it was his back and forth where he didn't understand what was going on.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
I mean, he answered.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
To me, he lied to the police about, so if that's, I don't know where the other judges are, but based, if I believe that, what is that, what do I do with that, given the judge's ruling here, the district court's ruling?

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, so in this case- How do you prevail if we determine there's a lie, is a better way to put it?

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
So as to the statements made by Mr. N, there is no precedent that the government relies on where this would justify intrusive measures.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
And here, even if the court finds that there is clear error as to the clarity of Mr. N's denial, the district court correctly found that this doesn't change the analysis because the statements that were made did not increase the threat level to officers.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
Here, had Mr. N said something different, that would create this

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
perceived threat to the officer's safety, that would change the analysis in this case.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
But here, his unclear denial does not increase the threat.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
If he had a gun on his person and an officer asked him, do you have a gun on you, and he lied about it, don't you think that increases the danger?

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, I do.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
And so why is it different that the gun, although it's not on his person, is still accessible to him?

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
So we agree with the district court's finding that the court that the gun was not accessible to him because in this case, he was out of the car.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
He was not armed.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
He was not within reach of the car.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
How is that possible?

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
I mean, he had one officer holding his one right hand.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
You know, he's still by the open door.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
The gun is behind the passenger seat door seat.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
So if he just lunges back into the car, he could grab the gun and use it.

[00:11:23] Speaker 04:
I guess my point, how can the district court make the finding that all that danger is eliminated?

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
The district court made the finding that there was a minimal risk, not that there was no risk of access, and that this minimal risk did not justify the use of handcuffs here because Mr. N was restrained the entire time.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
And when we look at Washington versus Lambert, we're looking at special circumstances that involve the suspect taking action at the scene that would give

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
Officers reasonable belief that they're at a risk of safety there were no actions taken by mr. And that he would reach for the gun and when you're saying he was restrained the whole time you talking about the one hand on the right hand so He's removed from the vehicle.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
There's an there's a hand on his wrist.

[00:12:05] Speaker 00:
They place him up against the car officer Diaz has both of his hands where mr. Inns hands are behind his back both are restrained or both are Yes, and

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
I just don't know if you could make the factual finding that he's completely restrained at that point, because all he had to do was pull away.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
The district court correctly found that Mr. In was restrained during the entirety.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
Both of his hands are behind his back, and there is a frisk and a handcuffing that are done simultaneously here in this case.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
When we look at the totality of the circumstances with an individual who is unarmed, the car itself is, and Mr. In are surrounded by three armed officers.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
That ratio does not justify the use of handcuffs when an individual is compliant.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
He is doing all of the things.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
Council, are you saying that anytime the police can cuff a suspect, they think is dangerous, that that amounts to a defect or arrest?

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
no your honor this court's precedent is clear that handcuffs alone do not automatically convert a stop into an arrest but in this case they did because of all of the circumstances present with an individual here who is abiding by officers commands is not showing any uh... indication that he might flee is not making any uh... movements to reach into the vehicle and this court has also said

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
Thomas versus Rahr, that the claim that a suspect could have charged past a deputy, grabbed the revolver in the back of the car in a matter of seconds is weak.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
And that's because here in this case, the district court was correct to find that any danger that this firearm might have posed on the floorboard of the back seat was minimized after he'd been removed from the car and restrained.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
But it's ultimately under the law

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
And I understand there are these special circumstances, but under Lambert, it's a reasonable test at the end of the day, right?

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
It is.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
Back on.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
And we know we have a traffic stop, which the Supreme Court has said, and our circuit, that are especially fraught with danger to police officers.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
I looked at the Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, law enforcement officer death statistics over the last five years or so, and about 75% of felonious deaths on law enforcement comes from firearms.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
So you have an especially fraught circumstance.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
You have about 75% of felonious law enforcement officer deaths coming from firearms.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
You have somebody who lies to the officers, has a gun sort of, in my view, recklessly sort of not secured in the vehicle.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
And so why isn't that just reasonable?

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
Just standing back from all the tests, why isn't that just reasonable?

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
To handcuff him for a period of time to figure out what's going on here.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
Officers are tasked with using the least restrictive measures available to them.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
When we look at this court's precedent and we look at instances when the court found that a Terry stop was not converted into an arrest, it involved instances where

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
The suspect was presently armed.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
Officers were in investigating a violent crime, or they had reasonable suspicion that a violent crime might occur.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
Other instances where an individual is combative, not compliant, not listening to police officers' commands.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
We don't have those special circumstances here.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
And I would point, as Your Honor brought up, Washington versus Lambert.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
When it discusses the special circumstances that must be present, and as you said, it's a reasonableness test.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
It's not that they must be present, right?

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's not a correct statement.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
I misspoke.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
It is a reasonableness test.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
We're looking at the totality here.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
But it did specifically state in Washington versus Lambert that one consideration is whether the suspect is currently armed.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
Mr. In was not armed.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
He was removed from the vehicle and any perceived risk based on the firearm within that was neutralized after the officers took him out of the car.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
And that's consistent with this court's precedent when we look at Thomas versus Parr.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
Further, Washington versus Lambert states that under ordinary circumstances, using handcuffs violates the Fourth Amendment.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
The government needs to show and officers must have a reasonable belief that there is a safety concern that would justify the use of handcuffs that doesn't exist under these circumstances.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
Look, counsel, please.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
Do you feel the gun on the backseat does not raise a safety concern?

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
I believe that it raises a safety concern when Mr. In is in the vehicle.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
But the district court was correct that once he is removed and is patted down and found to be unarmed, that risk is significantly diminished.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
But if he breaks away from the officer holding his hands and the guns on the backseat, can't he just grab the gun and start shooting?

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
Under these circumstances, I think the likelihood of that is minimal because we have a vehicle that is surrounded by three armed officers with a suspect who's unarmed and placed on the curb.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
And that was after he was handcuffed.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
But what should the officers should have done once they realized he was lying about the firearms?

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
We submit that the officers were not aware of any clearly false statements until or that assuming we disagree with that part.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
In this instance, officers were permitted to remove him from the car as the government stated under Pennsylvania versus Mims.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
They were permitted to frisk him to determine whether or not he was armed.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
Once they become aware that he is unarmed and should be free to walk around.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
I think it's reasonable for the officers to place them on the curb and to create that distance between him and the vehicle.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
And here, that's what officers did.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
They also surrounded the car.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
What's the purpose of putting them on the curb?

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, can you repeat?

[00:17:53] Speaker 04:
What's the purpose of separating and putting them on the curb?

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
I think that would assist the officers in creating distance from the car, but here... What's the purpose of the distance?

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
We agree that there is, and when we look at protective sleep cases... Like a flight or danger?

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
It's a risk of...

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
being in the vehicle and having the firearm within reach.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
Here, the firearm was not in reach, and the officers unnecessarily handcuffed Mr. N. Could the officers have continued to hold him, his hands, through this whole period?

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
So they don't handcuff, hypothetically, they just hold his wrists together.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
Is that a de facto arrest?

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
Under these circumstances where you have an individual that is complying with police officers commands continue restraint is an intrusive measure that's unreasonable given these circumstances.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:18:47] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
So it doesn't really matter handcuffs were used if they kept holding him just like they did.

[00:18:55] Speaker 02:
and it wasn't handcuffs, you'd be in the same place.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, in this case, the position is that it's simultaneous.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
They are removing him from the car, and so I'm not really analyzing that part of it, because that's permitted under Pennsylvania versus MIMS.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
But once he's removed from the car and he's restrained, the officer is holding his hands behind his back and handcuffs him within seconds.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
Okay, but if he didn't handcuff him and kept holding his hands, we'd be in the same place, under your argument.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
I believe that's correct, Your Honor, and there needs to be... So we would have to let him go, under your theory, to walk around.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
I think it would be reasonable for these officers to, as they did here, surround the vehicle and

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
make it as if Mr. N was not able to gain access until they're ready to let him leave.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
And here Officer Anderson testified that unless they had found information that he had priors, he was only going to receive a ticket.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
And so when we look at protective sweep case law, the officers are permitted to perform methods that would make sure that they are safe when allowing the individual to reenter the vehicle and leave.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
Let me just check if Judge Gould had a question.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
My question is this, is there any precedent in the Ninth Circuit about whether if an officer sees a gun nearby a suspect that we have to err on the side of safety of the officer?

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
In fact, in cases where guns have been present, it's only, and the court has found that arrest is justified for the purposes of safety.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
It's only been when an individual is currently armed, and we don't have those facts here in this case.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
So, no.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
Here when we look at what was present at this stop, we have a routine stop that did not present any reasonable suspicion of violent crime.

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
Counsel, do you have any precedent of the Ninth Circuit that would say that your client was not armed when the gun was on the seat of the car?

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
Find a case on all fours without your honor.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
I would point this court to United States versus green from from this court their officers

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
The court found that there wasn't an arrest and that intrusive measures were justified there because in that case they drew their weapons on the individual, ordered him out of his car and frisked.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
But this was not an arrest because the individual was not compliant.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
He did not put his hands on the roof of the car when asked to do so.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
And here there was a rifle in plain view in the back seat of the car.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
But that didn't enter into the court's analysis here, because there the court was more concerned with whether or not an individual who was failing to comply

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
And a concern that they were armed based on a tip that had been provided The court found that there the intrusive tactics were reasonable But why that's so different from our case is because we don't have any tip that mr. In is presently armed we do not have an instance where he's failing to comply with officers commands and While there is a gun on the floorboard.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
He does not have reasonable access to that gun Thank You counsel unless there's further questions Okay

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
I'd like to address what I think is an error of the district court that really ties together a number of the threads that the court has been addressing throughout argument today, which is the failure of the district court to conduct its analysis from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the situation presented in the case before the court, which is what this court's precedents make very clear the district court is supposed to do, and there's really no indication in the record that that is the analysis that was actually conducted.

[00:23:01] Speaker 03:
Now, it's one thing to say that a gun on a seat of a floorboard presents no risk of danger with the benefit of hindsight or removal, but to the officers in the situation at the time, as they credibly testified, they were worried about it.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
And that was eminently reasonable for them to be worried.

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
I think a similar thing could be said about what the district court characterizes as the significance of the fact that N repeatedly lied to them about whether or not he had a gun.

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
Now to an officer in that situation being told, I don't have a gun when you know that's not true,

[00:23:40] Speaker 03:
is a valid source of concern.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
It is a valid basis for fears of safety that justify reasonable safety precautions.

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
And so we would submit that it's really this continued error in the district court's analysis that really runs through a number of these conclusions that it reached.

[00:24:00] Speaker 03:
I'm happy to answer any further questions that the court may have, but if not, I'll submit, and thank you for your time.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
Let me just check with Judge Gould.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
Any further questions?

[00:24:10] Speaker 04:
No further questions here.

[00:24:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
This is submitted.