If LEO asks if you have firearms during a Terry stop

[brboyer]

The problem is that there is not a court in this land that has separated "armed" from "dangerous" in the context of a detention made under true RAS. I don't see any court in the very near future separating those two and I'm not personally betting my freedom on it.

Actually at least one federal court already has...

Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence. See Davis, 94 F.3d at 1468. Defendants ask the Court to ignore the conjunctive phrasing of the rule and find, in essence, that anyone who is armed is, by virtue of that fact, dangerous. In light of the extensive, controlling and compelling jurisprudence to the contrary, the Court declines to do so.

 

[Sam1911]

If a police officer wants to ask questions, answer him. He's not looking arrest you;

How do you know that?

he wants to make sure you aren't doing anything wrong.

But he doesn't get to detain me, interrogate me, and search me just to make sure I'm not "doing something wrong." He has to have a reason that he can explain in court why he needed to stop me and put me through some kind of official screening. Otherwise he's just on a "fishing expedition" and that's not cool.

If you're not breaking the law, answer the officer's questions!

There are a LOT of laws in this country. It is almost certain that you do not know them all, even in the jurisdiction where you've lived your entire life. Blissfully volunteering more information than you are required to is balancing your belief that an officer will "go easy on you" against your belief that he doesn't desire quite the opposite outcome. I'd rather keep things strictly on-task, conclude business quickly, and move along.

Its pretty stupid to just say, "I exercise my right to remain silent without counsel" if you've done nothing wrong.

Exercising your right to refuse to divulge information is not "stupid" and those who choose to retain their rights are not "stupid." Please be careful tossing insults around.

if you cooperate and answer his questions it goes a very long way.

That's great, so long as it goes your way. If you turn out to be one of the unfortunates who meet the wrong officer on the wrong day, things might not go so well. There are plenty of examples out there (some already given in this thread). Sure, the odds generally favor you, but why take the chance?

Wanna search my car? Go right ahead. He'll find nothing and let me go. Wanna search me? Go right ahead.

Wow. That's creepy. I prefer the version of this that says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If an officer has a distinct need to search me and/or my possessions, there are clear paths he must follow in order to overrule the basic security/privacy rights that are supposed to be due to me -- as understood to be universal to all and unalienable, and so enumerated in our Constitution. If he can't meet those requirements, then he doesn't get to rifle me and my things.

If you have a gun on your body (legally) or in your car, tell him immediately. I always do that.

And yet there are some of us in states (even otherwise very good states) which have had systemic problems with such forthrightness being used to illegally harass, detain, and confiscate personal property. These abuses can cause monetary loss, great hassle, loss of time, as well as leaving the citizen unarmed, and are very difficult to fight or change. So, no, I don't volunteer that kind of information, ever, unless I am in a state that requires notification by law.

but I just don't see the point in telling officers, "I have nothing more to say." They are still human; work with them and they'll work with you.

They are still human and they are subject to the same foibles, fallacies, and failures as anyone else. The laws -- and your enumerated rights -- are there to protect BOTH of you so neither side harms or abuses the other.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm more interested in knowing how you know what I do know. How do you know what I've studied?

Fairfax County, Virginia cops proved you were wrong. What you've "studied" is irrelevant.

 

[Danb1215]

So deaf since you think the fourth amendment is "stupid", are you still ok with the second?

 

[deafdave3]

Exercising your right to refuse to divulge information is not "stupid" and those who choose to retain their rights are not "stupid." Please be careful tossing insults around.

I said the action is "pretty stupid"; I didn't not call a member stupid. Therefore, your accusation that I am "tossing insults around" is without merit.

 

[deafdave3]

So deaf since you think the fourth amendment is "stupid", are you still ok with the second?

I never said the Bill of Rights, or any part of it, is stupid. I just stated what I would do.

 

[Sam1911]

I said the action is "pretty stupid"; I didn't not call a member stupid. Therefore, your accusation that I am "tossing insults around" is without merit.

Fine. Let's dispense with perjoratives then and stick with the logical merits of the two sides of the debate.

Was that the only point I raised that you felt was incorrect or unfounded?

I just stated what I would do.

You stated what you would have done. In light of this discussion, would you now react the same way? Why or why not?

What assumptions are you making that lead you to feel more secure with your plan than with the opposite plan?

 

[deafdave3]

Was that the only point I raised that you felt was incorrect or unfounded?

No. I just don't see the point in arguing. Just because I don't respond to something, doesn't mean I admit error; I just don't argue. Its not my responsibility to change people's minds.

Reminds me of the senseless argument I had with my wife. She insists that lawn higher than four inches but neatly trimmed is healthier. I insisted that it needs to be shorter than two inches.

People can have disagreements, but nobody can change other people's minds.

Agree to disagree, then move on.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Actually at least one federal court already has...

Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence. See Davis, 94 F.3d at 1468. Defendants ask the Court to ignore the conjunctive phrasing of the rule and find, in essence, that anyone who is armed is, by virtue of that fact, dangerous. In light of the extensive, controlling and compelling jurisprudence to the contrary, the Court declines to do so.

Except, brboyer, St. John V. Alamogordo does not fit within the framing of my post. Notice my qualifying statement:

The problem is that there is not a court in this land that has separated "armed" from "dangerous" in the context of a detention made under true RAS. I don't see any court in the very near future separating those two and I'm not personally betting my freedom on it.

What did the Court think of Alamogordo police officers' RAS?

The undisputed facts establish that Mr. St. John's seizure was unreasonable. Defendants lacked a justifiable suspicion that Mr. St. John had committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a crime. Indeed, Officer McColley conceded that he did not observe Mr. St. John committing any crimes and that he arrived at the theater with the suspicion that Mr. St. John was merely "showing a gun", McColley Depo. 14:4, which is not illegal in the State of New Mexico. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq. Nor was there any reason to believe that a crime was afoot. When they found him, Mr. St. John was peacefully sitting through the previews for his second movie of the day. Officers had no reason to believe that Mr. St. John had been, was, or would be involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.5 Candidly, as the Ninth Circuit noted in a somewhat similar case, one would expect someone engaged in shady business to act in a more stealthy fashion than Mr. St. John did here.

So, again, we are back to the starting point of there being a justifiable detention to begin with!

 

[mstrat]

OP here. Let's clarify a few things.

If a police officer wants to ask questions, answer him. He's not looking arrest you;

Actually, he probably is. Louisiana is a very different world from Chicago. Up here Emperor Daley has his troops... ermm.. i mean police looking to tally up every gun conviction they can. Legal or not.

But that's beside the point. Again i was, and always do, follow the letter of the law.

stchman:

Conceal carry in NOT PERMITTED in Illinois in any way, shape, or form. If you are conceal carrying, then you are making a big mistake.

I'm afraid maybe you didn't read my post. Please do. There was no concealed carry taking place.

Encased and unloaded, in possession of IL FOID!

. Lying to a police officer is a felony, look it up.

Again - nobody is advocating or suggesting lying. That option was never on the table.

Doubtful that the LEO will want to search your car unless you are engaging in suspicious activity.

Here's the real crux of the whole thing. I danced around the topic, but speaking plainly, the LEO's (and most of CPD's) definition of "suspicious" is the stickers advocating 2nd Amendment rights.

Not until the recent McDonald SCOTUS case did Daley even "allow" us to exercise our human rights, protected by the constitution IN OUR OWN HOMES.
We still are not allowed to exercise those rights outside of our homes.

The "suspicious" behavior is wanting to think that any of the U.S Constitution, SCOTUS, and IL State law take precedence over Daley's (and by extension, his police force's) wishes.

So that's the background...

Now, before we get too far off topic (and to avoid the moderators closing this topic), let me re-summarize the original post and add what I've gleaned from you all so far:

1) How do you respond to an LEO asking about firearms during a traffic stop, with no cause other than stickers on the car

It seems most agree to be respectful, and do not consent to searches (though I'll add that doesn't make a difference. They search anyway). There is disagreement about whether to answer the direct question ("do you have firearms in the vehicle?") or not.

2) Is the sticker reasonable cause to search?
Most seem to agree it is not.

As I anticipated, and has obviously shown to be true, I'm going to get hassled from time to time and pulled over for imaginary traffic violations. I accept this.
I'm just looking for the most appropriate and respectful way to keep these incidents short and sweet (or better yet, avoid the incident altogether).

And by the way, thanks to everyone for their opinions, experiences, and information so far. It's quite helpful.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If they want to search your car all they have to do is claim to smell marajuana. Or they can lie. Either eay it is your word against a that of a cop. Who is the judge going to believe? You or a fellow city employee?

I live in a free state where your vehicle is concidered an extention of your home and anything that is legal in my house is legal in my car except open containers of alcohol.
We don't have much violent crime either. In fact I never have known anybody who has been mugged or car jacked in my state yet both my relitives who live in NY City have been mugged. Go figure.

 

[belercous]

First, do not lie. Refusing to answer is not lying, but it will draw suspicion. Inform the officer that you are not in violation of any law (assuming this is true.)

How I handle such situations, and I have, is that I act indignant. I am not cowed, but I am not aggressive or offensive either, but I know the law and I stand my ground.
I ask: "What makes you think I'm a crimminal? "What makes you think I am violating the law?" "Does my bumper-sticker, which expresses my political views make me likely to be carrying loaded guns?" (I have the same yellow bumper-sticker "It's Time For Concealed Carry" on my car. I live downstate.) "Do you really think that I'm stupid enough to openly advertise my political views while violating the law?" "If you have probable cause to search my vehicle then by all means do so, but if you are asking my permission to detain me further, I decline your request as I have other things to be doing and I do not enjoy being treated as a crimminal." "Has the check you've ran on my license shown me to be a habitual violator?" "What makes you think I'm a crimminal?"

Do not get irate, do not cuss. Act (well, it's not acting) indignant for being assummed to be a crimminal. Know the law. (Outside of Chicago and Aroura one can most certainly have a loaded gun in their car PROVIDED it is unaccessible from the passenger compartment. I.e., in the trunk. Yeah, look it up hint=[ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)(ii). In Illinois one can also have a loaded firearm with them if one is fishing, and has a valid fishing license and FOID. Look that up too, it is under "exceptions.") It is a good idea to have chapter & verse of the law at hand for situations such as this. Police officers think they know the law, but are often wrong.
Also, in Illinois, the center console or glove box of a vehicle is considered, for legal purposes, a container (this is case law, but easily found with a bit of research.) Nothing in Illinois law requires the container to be lockable. Ammunition cannot be stored with the firearm.

Do your own research and ghave the relevant citations at hand. I've had to correct one of the most senior Game Wardens in Illinois (taught a hunter saftey class I needed for my gun club) on this. He and all the "old-timers" knew he was right, I was wrong, and told me my book must be a misprint. The Game Warden issued a retraction after the lunch break when I politely asked him to double-check his book of laws, just to be sure. BTW, in Illinois, Conservation Officers have more power than any other law enforcement officer in the state.

 

[mstrat]

belercous:

Act (well, it's not acting) indignant for being assummed to be a crimminal.

Haha. I don't know if it's in my personality to pull that off. But more power to you. I always just speak minimally (i.e. only answer direct questions) - though I think I may stop answering irrelevant questions.

Also, in Illinois, the center console or glove box of a vehicle is considered, for legal purposes, a container (this is case law, but easily found with a bit of research.)

Yea, unfortunately nobody up north has put it to the test though. I certainly won't. My (and everybody else's, from what I've heard) suspicion is that you'll be thrown in jail for UUW and they'll leave it to the courts to sort out.
As much as I'm trying to be involved in the advocacy movement, that's not a risk I'm willing to take.

Ammunition cannot be stored with the firearm.

With respect, I believe you may be mistaken. As far as I know, none of the relevant statues make reference to the location of ammunition, other than to say the firearm must be unloaded.

The IL State Police go so far as to specifically address this question in their FAQ:
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

I'll agree, however, that you're likely to have less hassles if the ammunition is separate. But for practical safety purposes, I keep the loaded magazine right next to the pistol in the case.

 

[TonyAngel]

The fact of the matter is that the answer to this question is going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some are harder on guns than others.

Generally speaking, a traffic violation gives the officer a reason to believe that you've just committed a crime. He can pull you over for that. Again, generally speaking, however, on a traffic stop, the officer isn't supposed to go beyond that which is necessary to issue a traffic citation, unless he sees, hears or smells something that raises his suspicion to something else. Unfortunately, this latter part is what officers use to pull someone over because they are investigating something else and just needed a reason to stop you. A claim of smelling either fresh or burnt marijuana is considered to be probable cause to search. It's really funny when they do this, but don't find any marijuana and submit that the suspect must have eaten it. It's even funnier when the guy gets out of jail, runs to a lab and has a drug test run which tests negative for ANY CDS.

Personally, I don't ever remember a police officer pulling me over and asking if I have a gun in the car. I've also seen hundreds of DWI (DUI) videos and have never seen a police officer ask someone if they have a gun in the car.

As far as searches go, a warrantless search is not allowed absent exigent circumstances or consent. In order for the exigent circumstances exception to kick in, the police officer has to have probable cause to believe that you are hiding something illegal. The "do you have a gun" question is a loaded question. LOL. Get it. Anyway, if he asks you and you say yes, it could create a hairy situation because he now knows that you are in possession of a weapon, but can't decide if he should do something about it because technically he also needs to be able to show that you are dangerous to search for it. If you say no and the stop escalates for some reason and they wind up finding the gun, in a stretch, you could wind up with being charged with obstruction of justice. My answer to this is that the police officer shouldn't ask because absent any further information, he has no reason to believe that you are armed and dangerous AND in Louisiana, having a gun in your car isn't against the law, unless you are a convicted felon.

You are under no duty that I know of to inform the police officer that you are exercising your right to bear arms. The only exception is when you have a CCW permit. On of the requirements of having the permit is that you have to tell a police officer that you have a gun when you get pulled over.

If a police officer asks you if you have a gun, that in itself may be a violation of your constitutional right. It's none of his business and he can't claim that it's for his own safety absent a showing that he had reason to fear for his safety. What police officers where I am usually do is ask you to get out of your car while they write the citation. They DO NOT approach the car.

 

[xcgates]

There is no way you can know what is going on in an officer's head. Maybe he has something particular he is fishing for, maybe not, but do you know every nuance of the law? Nothing good can come from volunteering unnecessary information.

Joe schmoe on the street could start asking me all sorts of questions, why should I answer? If it is about the vehicle I'm driving (I live vehicles, have met some cool people by asking about cars/bikes/trucks) that is one thing. But questions whose goal I don't know, by someone who can arrest me, well, I doubt anyone has successfully talked their way out of a situation with cops.

Don't lie, but you don't have to volunteer anything that might incriminate you. By the way, cops are allowed to lie to you (at least in some situations, not clear on any limits). Far be it for me to be conspiratorial, however you do NOT know what an officer is thinking. It is a part of the bill of rights, don't feel guilty about exercising it.

 

[mstrat]

Tony, very helpful info. Thank you.

My answer to this is that the police officer shouldn't ask because absent any further information

And that's precisely the problem. The LEO oversteps his/her authority, but what can we do.

in Louisiana, having a gun in your car isn't against the law

Just to add clarification - this was in IL (where it's also not against the law, UNLESS it's loaded - which is what the LEO was hoping for based on the 2A stickers).

And again, thanks. That's a very informative post.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Yeah, but Navy, look the point made was that until you are in COURT the RAS isn't really in the picture unless you pay for a bull dog who is up the DA's 4th point of contact explaining what will happen once the judge throws it out, so let it go, give the stuff back and you apologize and we part ways.....

If the RAS stands, then yes by definition they had both parts of a Terry, but if they lack it, wouldn't then by the same criteria it be tossed, so in a way Yes you are right, but you make no point as you only affirm yourself, and exclude the argument....

As the Lawyer said, shut up, or I'll just end up charging you more.
And he had a polite version of it on his card, his instructions were (printed on the front) please read the back aloud to the officer then Say Nothing Further

The back said, I'm calling my lawyer and you can talk to him, I will say nothing further and do not consent to anything.

This is also what Cops say to other cops, the will talk with their Union rep, their lawyer If cops don't talk, why should I??????????

 

[IlikeSA]

"If he does request that you step out of the vehicle, do so slowly and carefully, but lock and close the door. If the door is closed and locked, the "Terry" frisk reasonably must be limited to your person. (If you're on the same side of the locked door as the officer, than any items inside are equally inaccessible to you and him and are thus not a credible threat to his safety.)"

Sam1911, if I may add to what you said. When you get out, make sure the windows are rolled up, lock the door, and put the keys into your pocket. When an officer is doing a Terry frisk, he may only remove weapons or items believed to be weapons from pockets. He therefore has no right to access the keys, and cannot open any part of the car, as the windows are up and it is locked, with no way for him to legally open it without a warrant or RAS.

 

[TonyAngel]

IlikeSA makes a good point. The area of search is limited to that which is accessible. There's actually case law right on point that the US Supreme Court published an opinion on, but the cite escapes me right now. The reason that I'm backing up IlikeSA is because we had a similar situation wherein a search was performed and the claim by law enforcement was that the car door was open and he saw something suspicious. Funny thing was when the officer was ordered to produce his phone records, it showed a call to pop a lock who had a record of popping a lock at that address.

If the police officer is going to ask you if you have a gun and it's it's against the law to have a loaded gun, then the question SHOULD be, do you have a LOADED gun in the car, or loaded handgun, or loaded rifle, whatever the case may be.

The practical side of it is that it costs money to challenge a governmental search or seizure. It may be best in some instances to just tell him that you have a gun, if he asks. Now, if the law is that it's unlawful to have a loaded gun and he only asks if you have a gun and searches on that basis, you may have the makings of a law suit.

At the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart liberal, I'd say call the ACLU or better yet, the NRA (not so liberal).

 

[TonyAngel]

OK, I'm not trying to get off on a rant, but just be aware that there's nothing that says that the government can't pass a law that might/will violate (or maybe just bend) a constitutional right. The government just has to have a really good reason (for the public good) for doing it.

 

[Erik]

Terry Stop: A brief, temporary involuntary detention of a person suspected of being involved in criminal activity for the purpose of investigating the potential criminal violation. To conduct a Terry Stop, a LEO must have reasonable suspicion which has been defined as articulable facts that would lead a reasonable LEO to conclude that criminal activity is afoot.

Terry Stops and Terry Frisks are not the same things.

Terry Frisk: After legally detaining the suspect in that Terry Stop, if the agent also has reasonable suspicion that the suspect’s presently armed and dangerous, then the agent can conduct a limited search of that suspect’s outer clothing for weapons. Now weapons are basically anything that can be used to hurt the officer. So the search is going to be limited to searching for hard objects that the suspect could use to hurt the officer like guns, pocket knives, mace, clubs, … it’s not limited to just those things we ordinarily think are weapons. It could also be things like car keys or pens because those could hurt an officer as well.

The Frisk: A LEO may pat down the suspect’s outer clothing and garments. The LEO can feel, crush, and twist that outer clothing as long as the officer’s not manipulating things inside the clothing that he can clearly tell are not weapons. Also the LEO can frisk unlocked containers that are in the possession of the subject, so bags, purses, unlocked briefcases.

Re vehicles: If the LEO stops a suspect in a car or the suspect just gotten out of his car when he’s stopped, the officer can frisk the passenger compartment of that vehicle. The frisk is limited to areas where the suspect might obtain immediate control of a weapon, so that includes the unlocked glove box, a briefcase, or console in the passenger compartment in vehicle.

Given a Terry Stop, you ask: "How would you respond?" I would respond truthfully. I understand why others would opt to remain silent. At no time, unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, can I understand being untruthful. And... That deception might very well be the articulable fact the Court uses to justify whatever consequences are reaped; it is a totality of circumstances thing, after all, with the deception likely being deemed a deciding circumstance; especially if suspicion of such leads to the confirmation.

 

[luigi]

If a police officer asks you if you have a gun, that in itself may be a violation of your constitutional right.

No it's not. a cop can ask you anything he wants. He can ask you if you want to buy naked pictures of your grand ma if he wants. What he can't do is force you to answer

 

[TonyAngel]

Ok, let's not take things out of context here. We're talking about things that might happen within the confines of a Terry Stop. Yes, if you are just a regular Joe standing on the corner, a police officer can walk up to you and ask you anything he wants, just as any stranger could. No, they can't make you answer.

Since we're gonna pick nits, let's hash it out. I've always found this topic to be interesting because the gray areas are broad. First of all, a police officer pulling you over for a traffic violation isn't a Terry Stop. A Terry Stop occurs when a LEO has a reasonable suspicion that you have committed, are about to commit or are committing a crime. Although a traffic stop does include an element of a Terry Stop, it goes further than that. With a traffic stop, the LEO IS the witness for the state as well as the investigating officer. He pulled you over because he had probable cause to believe that you committed a crime (traffic violation), because he saw you do it, which is different from a witness telling him that you did it. Probable cause is something more than reasonable suspicion and gives the LEO the authority to conduct an arrest. An LEO CANNOT conduct an arrest on reasonable suspicion alone. So....you get pulled over based on probable cause and the LEO writes you a ticket. The ticket is equal to an arrest. If you refuse to sign the ticket, you ARE GOING TO JAIL. They don't take you, because your signing the ticket is a promise to appear in court. Sort of like a personal bail undertaking, I suppose. Now, this is where it gets gray. When you are pulled over based on probable cause, you are not free to leave. The LEO is conducting a criminal investigation based on probable cause so any questions that he asks you are arguably during the course of a custodial interrogation. At this point, if he asks you anything that may cause you to divulge incriminating evidence, he should have read you your Miranda rights before asking the questions. At this point, red flags should go up for any reasonable person and now is the time to shut up.

So, back to the question...should he ask if you have a gun in the car. I think I could make a pretty good argument that he shouldn't have. First, in my state, it isn't illegal to have a gun in the car, therefore the question has no bearing on anything and a positive response should not be the basis for anything. Now, of course, if you have a sticker on your bumper and he runs your name and it comes back that you a warrant or attachment for your arrest or you are a convicted felon, then it becomes relevant. In the event that you have a warrant for your arrest, then he gets to do a search incident to arrest, which would include you and the area around you. If he tows your car, he can conduct an inventory search. With the sticker and a name check coming back that you are a convicted felon, the question is getting asked.

Please guys, understand, I do not intend anything that I say to be legal advise. I'm just shooting off at the mouth for purposes of this discussion.

 

[05FLHT]

Open and concealed carry are banned in Illinois. The Deadly Weapons statute provides exemptions for firearms being transported that are inaccessible, broken down into a non functioning state, or unloaded and enclosed in a case (a loaded magazine may be in the case, but not inside of the firearm).

If asked if any weapons are on my person or in my vehicle, the best response (which has already been stated) is "I have nothing illegal/there is nothing illegal in my vehicle." This probably is not the answer the PO is looking for, but it is the answer they will get from me.

If asked for my consent to search, I would politely refuse. It is my right to refuse and I will always exercise that right. If asked to step out of my vehicle, I would comply, but would lock the vehicle to avoid any doubt of my intent to refuse a search. If a PO still intends to search my vehicle , I would firmly request a supervisor be present on the scene.

Unfortunately in Illinois, even a citizen lawfully transporting a firearm as prescribed by statute is subject to the discretion of the individual officer (even with good case law and an IL Supreme Court ruling). Until the tide turns and lawful gun owners are no longer subject to persecution for simply possessing a firearm, citizens of (and visitors to) Illinois need to exercise due diligence in any encounter with law enforcement.

 

[Deanimator]

I advise that you don't get into word games. Cops play them for a living, and sometimes just for fun.

If they're just fishing, "Am I free to leave?" usually shuts them down. If it doesn't, "I have nothing further to say without benefit of counsel." BETTER shut them down without a warrant or a perverse desire to see their name(s) on a Federal 1983 civil rights suit.

When an LEO has you detained against your will, he is NOT there to "help" you. You're under NO obligation to help HIM find reasons to arrest you.

This goes especially for specific places, Chicago in particular. I'm not talking to a Chicago cop about the weather without my attorney there.