or reckless disregard for the truth so octane the search warrant the central question here is not whether the search warrants have been aquash is just simply whether nuff questions were raised to allow chambers to challenge the press and particularly a department he just came there from a neighboring state from harvey yeah right correct well then i guess that's better question that deserves to be answered that here i'm at the purpose of the preliminary showing i liken it to kind of  in with what appears to be a series of people each of whom is claiming to be the confidential informant and the state never admits which one if any of them were the confidential informant saul doesn't that sort of undermine the need for the frank sharing here i don't think so from their perspective when we have to give them some benefit of something else i don't think so i think if anything it does the opposite i think what happened was and that's a i agree it was kind of a curious sequence of events but the first counsel identified him and the and the state this new did not dispute it effect if anything i think the record can be fairly read that the state pretty much agrees that that is the company's will form it and again to the extent that there's any that were made in addition to the fact that this omission i just spoke of regarding him not only being with a with a bucket waiting for three days there's also the fact that there is no records there's no reports there's nothing to support this previous investigation of the markham home or a hopeless suppose it cooperations with the one prior cases there's also and of course the state ok because the off allegedly and of course in chambers own affidavit he said i was working on plumbing in the in the sure what home i was several blocks away i could not have been there to engage in this head of a spy on the eighteenth decision itself that speaks to that issue that requires that kind of burden and i think even more importantly as again in this particular case you know we submit that this is a kind of a highly he case given the officer a did bring that to like ok so again and that's not a small thing i mean i think this is how you hear me all right so so i think that in answer to just toss this question about you know this first i don't think the conflict at the end of the day really matters first arsenal and at house it is not like he had a history as long as your arm of that of having that i mean he thought it was only like a second or third he was on parole when he was arrested here are what's there and so just meeting his discretion made the determination that those affidavits were insufficient because the only noun related affidavit didn't put it didn't cover the time frame of the of the purchase of the cannabis within is if if he's there and he's testifying under oath as that is the non governmental informant then the question becomes is is it frank's hearing even if what i mean here first first of all we have a  ya not anyway asking to hide behind a line if that's the impression i get and i apologise if what i'm trying to say however is that as i said to be any frank's created a very narrow exception to the rule that you cannot go behind sander which is why is subject to reversal only if you find that it's fanciful and so that's the heart it's the harm of for the judge to make the determination the respect for the issuing warrants for them and straightaway she's the one in the first place that it's the law as identified by franks w a gated in this way at all with double jeopardy is clear that even evidence which was wrongfully admit it and we know way say that this was even having sufficient wrongfully admitted has to be considered for a determination whether or not there was sufficient evidence at the first trial and find an opportunity to appeal that issue was it not to appeal that issue i would imagine your honor if that were the ruling remanding in for frank's hearing this court would most likely retain jurisdiction to be able to review any other issues proper exercise of the judge's discretion based upon the facts in this case i mean there were almost two kilos of cocaine in this case there were i believe nine guns including in a report so just as would be a thirty five year period of perspiration so let me ask you not assuming that what you say about that and th multiple guns and then types of guns or about this this gentleman had an arsenal of weapons including assault rifles including very dangerous weapons those are factors that are aggravating in a properly considered on top of it most importantly in my mind is the fact that he wasn't probation at the time meaning that he had shown a disrespect for complying with the law shown a refusal to abide by the expected expectations of a behavior who was him probation for was a b because he had one probation for the time he the defendant has not made any challenge to that at all in this point in any way but the key is that he knew he was in probation at the time and didn't abide by his behavior that that in my mind is the s point too is frank's the whole really bad and reason behind franks is that it says we can't we can't preclude any veracity challenged whatsoever i mean we can't make it so on or is that frank