hearing. According to Rodgers, he and Cowan were engaged in “cordial” conversation. While Rodgers was in uniform, he repeatedly testified that he had merely asked Cowan if he would put his hands on the wall for a pat-down. This testimony was expressly found by the district court to be credible. “In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, Ve accord considerable deference to the credibility findings of the trial court.’” United States v. McCauley, 548 F.3d 440, 447 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Cooke, 915 F.2d 250, 252 (6th Cir. 1990)). The distinction between a question and command can be slippery. This court has found language that might be characterized as commands to be requests in the past. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 486 F.3d 949, 956 (6th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 560, 562
holding a suspects request for some time to think alone was not an invocation of the right to silence holding that the amendment constitutes a carve out to the unfair discrimination standard id at 64 holding that an officers request for a citizens identification by itself did not amount to a seizure holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations holding that an officers statement id like to see some id was a request