[00:00:00] Speaker 00: All right, welcome to the Ninth Circuit. [00:00:03] Speaker 00: I'm going to be calling the cases in the order that they're listed on the calendar. [00:00:06] Speaker 00: There are several matters that have been submitted on the briefs and record. [00:00:13] Speaker 00: Those cases are Williams versus Koenig, a state of Mary Bowles versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Johnny Burris versus JP Morgan Chase and Company. [00:00:26] Speaker 00: So the first case up for argument is United States of America versus James Talley. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:41] Speaker 02: May it please the Court, Todd Borden from the Federal Public Defender's Office appearing on behalf of the Appellant, James Talley. [00:00:47] Speaker 02: I'm going to try to save two minutes for rebuttal, and Judge Winn, I will make sure to keep an eye on the clock. [00:00:51] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:00:52] Speaker 02: The district court erred in denying the motion to suppress for two independent reasons. [00:00:57] Speaker 02: First, the anonymous 911 call lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to give rise to reasonable suspicion to search Mr. Talley. [00:01:04] Speaker 02: And second, even if that 911 call was sufficiently reliable, Mr. Talley, who is black and in the rear parking lot, did not sufficiently match the dispatch description of a white Latino suspect on the second floor. [00:01:18] Speaker 02: I intend first to focus on the anonymous 911 call reliability argument and then turn to sort of the events that transpired on the scene, although I'm of course happy to go wherever the court wishes. [00:01:29] Speaker 02: So in United States versus Vandergroe and this court recently identified sort of a series of factors that are salient to determining the reliability of an anonymous 911 call. [00:01:38] Speaker 02: And I think with the exception of the fact that this was to 911 versus a non-emergency number, overwhelmingly those factors tilt in favor of the [00:01:46] Speaker 02: lack of reliability of the tip here. [00:01:49] Speaker 02: First, the tip was from an anonymous rather than a known source. [00:01:54] Speaker 02: The caller at the very outset refused to give his name and had a very hostile tone. [00:01:59] Speaker 02: The district court said, well, it wasn't entirely anonymous, right? [00:02:06] Speaker 02: So I agree that it some information could be gleaned about the caller that's true your honor. [00:02:12] Speaker 02: He said this is the front desk so he said where he was calling from you could also infer potentially that he worked from the hotel as a front desk person, although we later learned that actually was untrue. [00:02:21] Speaker 02: He was just the son of someone who did work at the hotel. [00:02:26] Speaker 02: But I do think it's important that he demanded anonymity at the outset of the call. [00:02:29] Speaker 02: I think that does sort of raise the inference that there's a certain evasiveness when you don't want to even give your name. [00:02:35] Speaker 02: And he wasn't even asked his name. [00:02:36] Speaker 02: He's like, I don't even want to give that. [00:02:38] Speaker 03: But the front desk, though, that's pretty identifying. [00:02:42] Speaker 03: You know the location. [00:02:43] Speaker 03: The front desk presumably has some control over the hotel. [00:02:47] Speaker 03: And so that's a pretty strong indicator of where it's coming from. [00:02:51] Speaker 02: So yes, you could interpret that. [00:02:54] Speaker 02: I mean, I do. [00:02:55] Speaker 02: Obviously, we look at what was the facts at the time. [00:02:57] Speaker 02: But I do think the fact that it turned out wrong does, I think, somewhat bolster. [00:03:01] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, go ahead. [00:03:02] Speaker 03: What was the precise relationship? [00:03:03] Speaker 03: He was the son of someone that worked at the hotel? [00:03:06] Speaker 02: Yes, the best understand. [00:03:07] Speaker 02: And this only came out actually after Judge Yelston ordered the evidentiary hearing and defense investigator went out and talked. [00:03:12] Speaker 02: I mean, so the original order actually just stated affirmatively that he was a front desk employee. [00:03:17] Speaker 02: No, to clarify, Judge Boumete, he was the son of Christina, we don't know either of their last names, who worked in the hotel in some capacity. [00:03:26] Speaker 03: But I guess what more would it be to give a name? [00:03:29] Speaker 03: Like, I'm Joe Smith from the front desk. [00:03:34] Speaker 03: Would that have really moved the ball in far as reliability versus saying, I'm from the front desk? [00:03:39] Speaker 02: Well, you know again, I do think the fact that he's sort of trying to hide things I think should raise the inference that there's some sort of evasiveness going on I do want to on the anonymity point though I do want to highlight one other thing which is that there is a double layer of anonymity here so the caller or [00:03:55] Speaker 02: Partially and I mean I acknowledge to some extent to judge Paisas point that it's not necessarily an on off switch but I do think it's more in the direction of anonymous with the caller himself again because he's you know expressly demanded anonymity but the information he was relaying you know from the actual [00:04:11] Speaker 02: reporting person who saw the purported illegal activity, we don't know anything about who that was. [00:04:17] Speaker 02: You could maybe infer, he said a couple things about housekeeping's getting nervous, maybe you could infer some things about it, but again, it is still unknown who that person was. [00:04:24] Speaker 02: And I think when you compare it to Vandergroen, the contrast is pretty stark. [00:04:28] Speaker 02: In Vandergroen, you have the bar employee who gave his name at the outset, and yes, he didn't identify the specific patrons by name who had seen the person with the gun, but you didn't have that double layer of anonymity. [00:04:39] Speaker 02: So I do think that's a factor [00:04:40] Speaker 02: that really tilts in our favor. [00:04:42] Speaker 02: And I'd note that none of the cases cited by the government involve those two layers of anonymity, which I do think undermines reliability here. [00:04:50] Speaker 02: I'd also point out there was no predictive information provided. [00:04:52] Speaker 02: There's really no dispute about that. [00:04:55] Speaker 02: That is, you know, you look at Alabama versus White, the level of predictiveness there was really quite, you know, a whole other universe to what happened here. [00:05:02] Speaker 03: So then, okay, but now fast forward to the maid who says, he's over there. [00:05:06] Speaker 03: Like, how do you get out of that? [00:05:10] Speaker 02: Yes, well, so I think that, to some extent, whatever information is coming from Ms. [00:05:15] Speaker 02: Ornelas, it doesn't independently provide reasonable suspicion of criminality. [00:05:22] Speaker 02: So you have to accept that the tip as an antecedent sort of question was reliable to some extent, because the only notion we have of a gun, any illegal activity at all, comes from that 911 call. [00:05:33] Speaker 02: Ms. [00:05:34] Speaker 02: Ornelas, to be clear, does not say, [00:05:35] Speaker 02: the man with a gun. [00:05:36] Speaker 03: But doesn't it kind of confirm the reports? [00:05:39] Speaker 03: Like, you know, there's a guy with a gun, and then you see a woman who's clearly frightened, saying he's over there. [00:05:46] Speaker 03: Isn't that just reasonably that would lead to the inference that there's someone with a gun over there? [00:05:52] Speaker 02: Well, you know, I think the officers, I think, could have done a little more to really confirm that point, because to be clear, they didn't say, [00:06:01] Speaker 02: is the guy with the gun over there. [00:06:02] Speaker 02: The gun in the parking lot, you know, and they were, I acknowledge to some extent having some language barrier issues, but you know, between the officers, Spanish and Miss Ornelas's limited English, they were able to, I think that level of communication totally could have been possible. [00:06:15] Speaker 00: Right, but I think the district court, though, I think had a good point in the district court's analysis. [00:06:19] Speaker 00: It's really, [00:06:20] Speaker 00: inferences but the chain ties together so it's not just an anonymous call it's an anonymous call coming from the front desk with identification of the source of information being our staff our staff is concerned within minutes the officers are on scene they talk to [00:06:39] Speaker 00: people who appear to be staff, and then the man is over there. [00:06:43] Speaker 00: I mean, it's not a great leap of logic. [00:06:46] Speaker 00: And, you know, reasonable suspicion is really, it's required, but it's really not that high of a bar. [00:06:54] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:06:54] Speaker 02: Well, a few responses to that, Judge Winn. [00:06:58] Speaker 02: You know, some of the other I do want to just emphasize a couple of the other factors that I do think also tilt against the government, which is, you know, he didn't say how he knew that information and it wasn't firsthand from him. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: So I do think that there's a few things that do, you know, make the call questionable, but I guess turning to turning more directly to answer your question. [00:07:18] Speaker 02: I think the other critical point here is that Mr. Talley is black. [00:07:22] Speaker 02: And that's a pretty major discrepancy. [00:07:24] Speaker 02: And to the extent that they're relying on that call and the description of the suspect, when they get to the sort of back balcony overlooking that rear parking lot, Officer Silvestri testified he could tell that Mr. Talley was African-American before he trained his weapon on him. [00:07:41] Speaker 02: So he was only seized after that. [00:07:45] Speaker 02: You know, that's a pretty important discrepancy with the dispatch description, which would tend to dispel reasonable suspicion because, um, and, and so for that reason, um, you know, the, you know, that's a pretty important mismatch. [00:08:00] Speaker 02: And I think that calls really for more investigation rather than just sort of immediately, you know, uh, seizing and frisking every person they happen to bump into in the back area, which is sort of what happened. [00:08:11] Speaker 02: Um, so. [00:08:13] Speaker 02: And I do want to emphasize, even if I'm not persuading the panel that the 911 call wasn't sufficiently reliable, and again, I do think that if you compare it to Vandergroen, if you compare it to Fernandez, Castillo, and Terry Crespo, there are a lot of important distinctions, especially with that double layer of anonymity and lack of firsthand information. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: But even if the court... Can I ask a question about that? [00:08:31] Speaker 03: Because I thought the report was that he was Latino, right? [00:08:34] Speaker 03: From the call. [00:08:35] Speaker 03: And then the dispatch response was that WML, white male Latino, that just seems like a disconnect from the report and the dispatch. [00:08:45] Speaker 02: Right. [00:08:45] Speaker 02: So the dispatch description, which is what the information the officers had, was that he was a white male Latino. [00:08:51] Speaker 02: And I think if you look to what happened... Officer Silvestri pretty candidly testified that he [00:08:57] Speaker 02: You know, there's a point in the back porch or back balcony where they're sort of, you know, confused. [00:09:02] Speaker 02: There's the gentleman that did get frisked first, and then there's Mr. Talley in the back area. [00:09:08] Speaker 02: At one point, Officer Silvestri says, that's not him. [00:09:10] Speaker 02: And he later testified. [00:09:11] Speaker 02: The reason he said that is because he could plainly see that Mr. Talley was African American. [00:09:14] Speaker 03: Do we credit the Latino report or the dispatch report? [00:09:18] Speaker 03: Do we have to look at what the officer's frame of mind from the dispatch or what [00:09:23] Speaker 03: You know, do we now, can we use all the, you know, the whole, all the officer's knowledge rule and say Latino is somewhat ambiguous. [00:09:30] Speaker 03: It could be, you could be black and Latino. [00:09:32] Speaker 02: Oh, absolutely. [00:09:33] Speaker 02: But they did say white Latino. [00:09:34] Speaker 02: So I think that is an important factual point to make. [00:09:37] Speaker 02: As far as what counts here, I cited the Colon case from the second circuit. [00:09:41] Speaker 02: The collective knowledge, I mean, the government's not invoking collective knowledge, but collective knowledge extent, I would extend to dispatch because dispatch is a sworn police officer, but the 911 operator who's a separate person did not. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: you know whatever whatever may have been there I don't think I think what is relevant to answer your question would be the information actually conveyed to the officers by dispatch I see I have a minute and change left so I'd like to reserve that time if there are any further questions all right thank you counsel thank you your honor [00:10:26] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: May it please the Court, Nikhil Bhagat, on behalf of the United States. [00:10:32] Speaker 01: The reasonable suspicion standard takes into account the totality of the circumstances, the entire picture. [00:10:39] Speaker 01: It's common sense. [00:10:40] Speaker 01: It's non-technical. [00:10:41] Speaker 01: It's practical. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: It precludes a divide and conquer analysis. [00:10:45] Speaker 01: And ultimately, as you recognize, Judge Nguyen, it's a very low standard. [00:10:51] Speaker 00: It just requires- What do we do with the fact that it's the wrong race? [00:10:53] Speaker 00: And when the officers came on scene, there was some sense of doubt as to who they were talking about. [00:11:00] Speaker 00: the officer saying, well, I don't think that's him. [00:11:02] Speaker 00: There were other individuals on the, I think it was the second floor, if I recall correctly. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: So it wouldn't have taken very much to do a little further inquiry and investigation before stopping individuals whose race did not match the race of the description, right? [00:11:19] Speaker 00: So what do we do with that? [00:11:21] Speaker 01: So a couple of responses, Your Honor. [00:11:23] Speaker 01: I think certainly there was a racial mismatch in this case. [00:11:27] Speaker 01: Same thing happened in Vandergroen. [00:11:29] Speaker 01: I think the racial mismatch in this case is [00:11:34] Speaker 01: Explained quite easily in that mr. Talley when he was encountered had basically a face covering over his entire face Mr. Nellis testified and some of the officers testified that they could only see his eyes, right? [00:11:47] Speaker 01: So it's unclear. [00:11:49] Speaker 01: It's easy to see how that racial mismatch occurred So that's number one number two is that I think the officer from the balcony was able to see that he was a black man and [00:11:57] Speaker 01: So, Officer Silvestri did testify to that, but the other three, there were four total officers who testified at the evidentiary hearing. [00:12:04] Speaker 01: Three of them said they could not tell from the balcony what his race was, and Officer Silvestri was the only one who could tell from the balcony what his race was. [00:12:14] Speaker 01: And so that's one. [00:12:17] Speaker 01: I think the second thing to take into account here, Your Honors, is that this is an emergency situation. [00:12:21] Speaker 01: They did what investigation they could. [00:12:24] Speaker 01: You have the first officers arriving on scene. [00:12:26] Speaker 01: They have that front parking lot. [00:12:28] Speaker 01: They see a person. [00:12:29] Speaker 01: They discuss among themselves whether that person meets the description. [00:12:32] Speaker 01: They think he doesn't. [00:12:33] Speaker 01: They move on. [00:12:34] Speaker 01: They encounter Ms. [00:12:35] Speaker 01: Ornelas sort of at that point. [00:12:37] Speaker 01: She's directing them to the back. [00:12:39] Speaker 01: They go to the back where she's directing them, they see a person on the balcony, they assess whether that person meets the description or not, and then kind of simultaneously they're seeing Mr. Talley. [00:12:49] Speaker 01: So I would submit that they did in fact do the investigation that you would want them to do, and that was reasonable under the circumstances. [00:12:56] Speaker 01: Again, we're talking about a holistic- What was the emergency? [00:12:59] Speaker 04: I don't recall anybody characterizing it as an emergency. [00:13:02] Speaker 01: So it's an emergency in that it's a 911 call that's made to an emergency line. [00:13:07] Speaker 01: There is a man with a gun at this location in the middle of downtown San Francisco in a high crime area. [00:13:13] Speaker 01: He's scaring the housekeepers. [00:13:14] Speaker 01: He's displaying the weapon, if not using it. [00:13:17] Speaker 01: I think all of that kind of together puts it into the bucket of an emergency situation. [00:13:22] Speaker 04: What did he affirmatively do to scare the housekeepers? [00:13:29] Speaker 01: He dropped the gun, he picked it up. [00:13:31] Speaker 01: He then, Ms. [00:13:31] Speaker 01: Ornelas testified while she continued to work. [00:13:34] Speaker 01: He came and looked her up and down and she felt scared by that. [00:13:39] Speaker 01: And so I think certainly you have that testimony. [00:13:42] Speaker 01: And again, it's not necessarily what he affirmatively did. [00:13:44] Speaker 01: It's how the officers perceived it. [00:13:46] Speaker 01: It's whether the officers here, in this case, were acting reasonably. [00:13:50] Speaker 01: And I think, again, if we're talking about the two buckets, you have the JL bucket of general criminality, where it's just a person with a firearm kind of standing at a bus stop. [00:13:58] Speaker 01: And then you have this other bucket of an emergent situation. [00:14:01] Speaker 01: We would submit to you that this is an emergent situation, which, again, adds to the reliability [00:14:07] Speaker 04: Do you agree that the caller was anonymous? [00:14:10] Speaker 01: No, not at all. [00:14:14] Speaker 04: He didn't give his name, did he? [00:14:17] Speaker 01: He didn't give his name. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: He said, I want to stay anonymous. [00:14:21] Speaker 01: I would agree that he wanted to stay anonymous. [00:14:24] Speaker 01: But this situation fits squarely within Justice Kennedy's concurrence in jail. [00:14:29] Speaker 01: where he's talking about there's a lot of these other factors that preclude true anonymity, that let us narrow the scope of the sort of scope of folks who it could be, right? [00:14:43] Speaker 01: He says immediately, I'm at 790 Ellis. [00:14:46] Speaker 01: I'm calling from the front desk. [00:14:48] Speaker 01: 790 Ellis is the address of the Civic Center Hotel. [00:14:51] Speaker 01: He is constantly referring to our staff. [00:14:53] Speaker 01: We're not gonna jeopardize our staff. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: We're not gonna go out and meet the officers. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: He also, during the 911 call, after he has a background conversation in Spanish, tells them housekeeping here is scared. [00:15:06] Speaker 01: The E911 data that the officers had, the caller ID confirms that, that he was calling from the office of the Civic Center Inn. [00:15:13] Speaker 01: So all of those things taken together give rise to a reasonable inference that if he wasn't an employee of the Civic Center Inn, certainly he was closely affiliated with the Civic Center Inn. [00:15:24] Speaker 01: And the Civic Center Inn is not a 1900 room sort of mega hotel in Union Square. [00:15:30] Speaker 01: It's a small motel in the Tenderloin. [00:15:34] Speaker 01: The universe of people who work there is going to be very small. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: And I think this is like the case of the UPS driver. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: This is like the case of the Montana Department of Transportation. [00:15:43] Speaker 01: Other cases in which this court has recognized that even where you don't have specifically a name, you have enough other identifying features to mean that the call is not truly anonymous. [00:15:54] Speaker 01: In addition to the call not being truly anonymous, you have a contemporaneous report here. [00:16:02] Speaker 01: The testimony was that Mr. Nellis, it took her about, between the time that she first saw the gun and the time of 911 call, about 15 to 20 minutes elapsed. [00:16:11] Speaker 01: But that 15 to 20 minute period was not her not having eyes on Mr. Talley. [00:16:17] Speaker 01: She testified that she was in the parking lot. [00:16:19] Speaker 01: She continued her work. [00:16:20] Speaker 01: When she walked over to the lobby to meet Christina and the other people who were there, she saw Mr. Talley jump up to the second floor. [00:16:27] Speaker 01: And then they continued to watch her on the video, watch him on the video cameras for about five minutes. [00:16:32] Speaker 01: And that's the point at which the 911 call is made. [00:16:35] Speaker 03: I have a question about that. [00:16:36] Speaker 03: It was described jumped up or climbed up. [00:16:38] Speaker 03: I mean, did that mean he literally climbed up or he took the stairs? [00:16:42] Speaker 01: I think the testimony was that he jumped up, but the testimony was given through an interpreter, so I'm not sure what specifically happened in terms of whether he took the stairs or whether he jumped up. [00:16:53] Speaker 03: It would be more alarming if he's jumping up to go to the second floor versus just taking up the stairs. [00:16:58] Speaker 01: Yeah, I would say that the officer's testimony was that it wasn't, it's the second floor, but it's really one and a half floors. [00:17:05] Speaker 01: So it's not necessarily as high as you would think it would be. [00:17:09] Speaker 01: So it might've been possible for Mr. Talley to jump. [00:17:12] Speaker 01: But that's, I don't think that's specifically in the record as to whether he jumped or took the stairs. [00:17:16] Speaker 01: I think it was climbed in the record too. [00:17:19] Speaker 01: And that might have been the case. [00:17:21] Speaker 01: So they're watching him sort of the entire time till just before the 911 call. [00:17:26] Speaker 01: Again, we talked about it's an emergency, not general criminality. [00:17:29] Speaker 01: And of course, you have this sort of very detailed description. [00:17:31] Speaker 01: Aside from race, Mr. Talley matches in height, he matches in build, and he matches in clothing. [00:17:39] Speaker 01: He's wearing all black with white shoes. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: You know, they're harping on these sort of minor discrepancies. [00:17:44] Speaker 01: I don't think the Fourth Amendment demands perfection. [00:17:46] Speaker 01: The Fourth Amendment demands reasonableness. [00:17:48] Speaker 01: And I think under those circumstances, the 9-1-1 call was reasonable. [00:17:52] Speaker 01: I do want to just briefly touch on the housekeeper because I think that's an important part of this story. [00:17:58] Speaker 01: The reasonable suspicion analysis doesn't get put into little buckets here. [00:18:02] Speaker 01: It's not the 911 call and let's analyze it. [00:18:04] Speaker 01: It's not the housekeeper, let's analyze it. [00:18:06] Speaker 01: This is a continuing story, right? [00:18:09] Speaker 01: So as soon as she, as soon as the officers get there, they of course respond within minutes. [00:18:13] Speaker 01: She immediately flags him down. [00:18:15] Speaker 01: She says, you know, he's in the back, he's in the back, he's in the back, he's by the cars in the parking lot. [00:18:20] Speaker 01: They encounter the person on the balcony. [00:18:22] Speaker 01: They ask, is it this guy or is it this guy? [00:18:24] Speaker 01: And she says, it's the guy in the parking lot. [00:18:26] Speaker 01: And then in addition to the location of Mr. Talley, she does two very important things to corroborate that 911 call. [00:18:34] Speaker 01: First, she says that he's wearing all black, he's in all black. [00:18:38] Speaker 01: She's corroborating the description that's given in the 911 call of the clothing. [00:18:43] Speaker 01: And the second thing is she says he was opening the door, which corroborates what Victor was saying to the 911 operator about he was trying to get into the rooms. [00:18:52] Speaker 01: And so even if you were to give any credit to this notion that, well, she didn't specifically say to the officers when she got there that she was talking about the man who was the subject of the gun call on the 911 call, you can infer from those statements the fact that she says he's in all black and that he was opening the door, that she's talking about the same person. [00:19:17] Speaker 01: And so, of course, she's giving a face-to-face tip, which is inherently this court has held is more reliable. [00:19:25] Speaker 01: So the 911 call, Your Honors, was not anonymous. [00:19:29] Speaker 01: It evinced several factors that indicated that it was reliable. [00:19:34] Speaker 01: The housekeeper added to that reasonable suspicion in her face-to-face tip to the officers. [00:19:41] Speaker 01: And thirdly, the officer's own investigation corroborated their decision to stop Mr. Talley. [00:19:47] Speaker 01: So for all those reasons, Your Honor, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Talley, and we would ask that the court affirm the judgment below. [00:19:57] Speaker 00: All right. [00:19:57] Speaker 00: Thank you, counsel. [00:20:10] Speaker 02: Two quick points in response on the racial mismatch question. [00:20:14] Speaker 02: I really urge the panel to look at Vandergroen I think that's a really sort of tertiary point in that case because they were getting up live updates about the suspect It was nighttime. [00:20:23] Speaker 02: There's a lot of distinguishing factors there and I go through that in my brief I want to emphasize as well that officer Silvestri did expressly testify. [00:20:29] Speaker 02: He could tell mr. Talley was black I'd urge the panel also to look at the video you can see that [00:20:33] Speaker 02: It's a balaclava, but the whole eye and sort of nose region is open. [00:20:37] Speaker 02: And at least in my opinion, I think you can pretty clearly see his identity. [00:20:41] Speaker 02: Even if other officers said they couldn't tell, the collective knowledge doctrine would still mean that Silvestri's knowledge would be imputed to the rest of them. [00:20:47] Speaker 02: So I don't really think that gets the government very far. [00:20:50] Speaker 02: It is a really critical mismatch. [00:20:51] Speaker 02: In police work, race, for better or worse, is a very major aspect of how people identify people. [00:20:58] Speaker 02: The first thing out of 911 operator's mouth was white, black, Hispanic, or Latino. [00:21:02] Speaker 02: or Asian, I'm sorry. [00:21:04] Speaker 02: But so, you know, that is pretty critical. [00:21:06] Speaker 02: On the emergency situation, I think it's notable that Ms. [00:21:09] Speaker 02: Ornelas can testify that she continued to clean for 15 minutes after she saw the gun. [00:21:14] Speaker 02: So I think it suggests that she didn't necessarily view it as such an urgent situation to warrant that. [00:21:20] Speaker 02: And I think it's also different than cases like Terry Crespo, where you have an actual brandishing of the firearm. [00:21:24] Speaker 02: This is more of a mere possession, which I think is a different situation. [00:21:27] Speaker 02: So for all of those reasons, I would urge the court to reverse and remand with instructions to grant the motion to suppress. [00:21:33] Speaker 00: Thank you, counsel, for your argument. [00:21:35] Speaker 00: Very helpful this morning. [00:21:37] Speaker 00: The matter is submitted.