appreciate you know the the fair inference points i mean you have lots of good arguments you know a lot of the cases in this area rise in the context of controlled bodies and you know what's nice about those cases in terms of strengthening the inference is that you have a situation where the officer you know passed someone down right like they there they have been no there's there's no cocaine on them for example they take the money they go into the house they come back in may have to can so that inference is stronger what would we do about that what your honor i would argue that the inference is stronger in this situation so typically the control the confidential informant in a controlled transaction as you've indicated is searched to make sure that he or she doesn't have drugs on him or her but here we have an undercover officer who is the buyer so he i think reasonably can presume that the buyer in that in our situation the detective the at the end does not already have drugs and has no control drug a transaction because he's not a cooperating person but he and he goes and stops at a location before consummating the sale twice so in that situation as that i mean look maybe  is as much for your colleague aside i think that that's a good answer i get to you answer but we still don't know whether the buyer might have already had cocaine i mean it's it's hard to understand why did stand but conduct but still it's still quite possible it's not from whites that's correct we don't do not know for sure that the middleman dealer in this case gerald crackle cannot already have cocaine on him that's of course possible but as a circuit reasoned in the duke's case in rejecting that exact argument in none of the none the less reasonable to infer that the dealer obtained the drugs from inside the house because if you already had the drugs on him why would he make his customer wait while he goes somewhere else and then comes out with the drugs and many it's possible to use trying to raise the price he's trying to raise the price he's showing how complicated this is of me there and here we are supposed to review the affidavit in a common sense reasonable manner that with a grudging or negative attitude toward the information there and and so while it's possible to come up with some kind of explanation for why this it's not quite as clear i realize there's another officer but i was an obvious to me that you were lost sight of it was in their sight the whole time or is or is that it in my being unfair is it is still the reading of the record between the confidential informant and the other officer never lost sight of the middleman i believe that is the only reasonable reading of the affidavit the affidavit says that detective schmidt had eyes  small inference to be made that there's not a moment where they lost sight of them less last set of chemical but it's not a very small inference and really probably the only reason we went to dr but it is very minor and reasonable and well let's see you're right about all this i was you know jack was of course a terrific judge and he seemed pretty upset about what happened here and i wondered if it wasn't the no no serious encounter right egypt the white your was weapon it's precisely the kind of thing that can lead to these the violence we've seen so much of the last couple of years in my writing and in wondering if that's what's going on in  the relevant office paying attention to which a charter was sang about being too casual when it comes to no knock warrants so this was a state warrant and clearly jacker had a significant concern about the no knock entry however that is not a basis of course for suppressing the evidence in the case  and i actually also would disagree with jenji honor to the extent that he found that the justification in the affidavit was so out of bounds as to not even color oblique constitute i thought the requirement was that you had to do more than say drugs were better than other words we all get the point the drugs can disappear quickly but i didn't think you were allowed to get away with just so you had quit cocaine voila it could be easily disposed of i thought you had to do more of it kept the cocaine in the bathroom or something like that so it is absolutely the case that drug war and the execution of drug war answer not drugs aren't are not a category that are exempted from th normal rules the normal rule is that an officer must have reasonable space to special and that nagging in announcing their presence under the particular circumstances would be dangerous or futile or would it hit the investigation of the crime and in rich areas the court circumstances there may be situations in which they don't maybe the officers who are executing the warrant know who is inside there's a mom and her kids there's a lot of situations in which that wouldn't necessarily be the case and the court said by the way there's also other categories of warrants that would seem to us to be at least equally dangerous like investigating armed robbery so it's absolutely the case that it's not enough to say we're looking for drugs but it is a relevant fact that it is a drug investigation as the court said in richard's in addition the fact that the drugs are being sold in quantities that are easily disposed of as opposed to in this court's decisions in bates which predates richard's but in bates and in smith those involved very large quantities of drugs that would not be easily disposed of one involved fifteen kilograms of cocaine another involved a large quantity of drugs secreted in a vehicle in the garage of the court set in those cases well this is not one of those cases like in jones where the drug transactions are taking place near the back in order to you know quickly dispose of the drugs so here we have i think at least something close to jones because we have drugs being sold in a residence in relatively smaller quantities three grand quantities that could easily disposed of we don't we have a situation where we do know the officers do not know who is present inside the house that's a relevant circumstance to consider according to richards and we have the fact that the you know people don't go to wealthy neighborhoods and sterling and say aha i suspect there's insider trading going on here or our position is and it's positive at this question in that whether it's a good in healthy dialogue going on across the country about the wisdom of no doubt or it's in all events suppression is not an appropriate remedy toxic there there's a lot of control five cases where two controlled by islam in fact some involve just one but there are quite a few of these cases and all of their rosters whether it's a legitimate inference mcmanus made the point i had not thought about it in this case it's actually arguably a better case because the person that ends up with the the drugs is working for the government so pretty fair to assume they didn't already have the drug it really does seem quite strange to have the confidential informant asked cockle two different times to buy drugs go to the same you know he doesn't sell them at that point that's quite puzzling behavior i can't even think of the explanation because he thinks he doesn't think the confidential informants an officer he thinks he's a drug buyer so it's very hard for me to figure out w confidential undercover officer in one it are him to follow him and to drive around and drive to somebody is hard to make sure he's not being followed and go in the house to kind of observe is around and there could be any other explanation why someone would go into someone's house think remains in this case that no one actually saw what happened in the house and wright ever involved in any criminal activity that his house was ever involved in any criminal activity that drugs were ever seen in his house and the only thing that was just to make sure i'm following this point are you saying it wasn't clear that this house was mr white's house so if you're saying no it was a mr mr white's house they confirmed that but there is no allegation that mr white or his house were everyone involved in any drug activity or any even suspicious activity so we have a person go into someone else's house where we don't know what happened we know pretty much nothing at least nothing incriminating about it until it's still some mysterious why he did this we've got the raising the price theory but there's no there's no part of the conversation that conveys d that well i've got some now but i've got some really when i don't i don't know what part of the conversation suggest that and says i like some drugs and he says ok let's go over here and get some i mean maybe he wanted to make sure he wasn't being followed there could be any number of explanations and it is the stand there even if he wasn't being followed w he then gets out of the car looks around why does he go in the white house b b to give it some time to see if somebody is going to come following him maybe to look through the window outside of obtain drugs and that that drug he goes in but so we can say three times and not only three times but every time someone although or the drug he goes inside so in that context maybe three to end we know something more about the heart is that there is other suspicious suspicious activity about the house or this resident of this house mr y has a criminal history or something so in isolation three times might or might not be but here we don't have three times we have two times and they happen in a span of forty days and also going back to your point at sutter when you're sad they didn't have  the car he goes into quite details how he observed him get out of the car travel get out of car go in come back so lots of details but only size in the direction so  in his house that that is the same as here and it is not the same because for several reasons st houser had a lot more information that is missing here for instance there was information from  confidential informant that hauser has been drying buying drugs from the individual this determined to be house or so we have allegation of ongoing criminal activity by the defend then who's residences search and returned into his own drug which is markedly different than the situation that joran can call simply why inside and outside after receiving order and before delivering is that suspicious that that is suspicious that raises a hunch but is not sufficient concrete information that astonishes this nexus which has to be based on concrete confidential informant who observed two men known to him in gage in drug transaction and he obs are one present exit the residence meet another at a doorstep deliver him a large amount cocaine in plastic bags and return injured so what is different in this case is the corret in alison emphasize that sequence of events the person came out of the house carrying these drugs and then returned back inside and several times and for size that sequence and that's not the sequence we have here sequence we have is that inside we don't know what he did there and he came out in alice and he kind of happened at the doorstep of the residence while here it happened some distance away and in fact every case that the government and that's the case where there was a helicopter flying over the fence property observed marijuana field the house and the road connecting the two so in that end the court found that there was no prob road connecting the two there is a concrete physical connection between the residence to be search and ongoing criminal activity but when we look at some other pieces where leon did not apply we see that even these cases had more then what we have here in i would have circle k says yes that i'm sorry can you please i'm just wondering you know so i get your point it's you know good for you for  case the confidential informants that that person is known to have arranged for drug drug deals so that the use of that word and range shows that he is acting more as a middleman than what we have here and i see that my time is almost stops though just want to conclude by saying that we asked the court to affirm the district court three quick points and the notion that speculation is required because no one observed what happened inside the lady residence that is certainly the case but that is often the case as is as it was in both alison and i was there where nobody actually saw what happened inside but rather it was a reasonable inference if the drugs that are emerged with the person selling them from the residence were obtained there and and in ellison the entirety of the probable cause information was that a confidential informant observed a person named short exit assigned door of the residence and meet with red while standing outside short to give bread a large quantity of cocaine and i asked after the deal was completed short went back inside the residence and read the factory that's it one transaction and while it is true that the person who sold the drugs went back inside again here at the fact that the seller of the drugs had to stop at this location twice equally or more supports the reasonable inference that the dealer with the tame the drugs from inside the residence and whether or not the nd transaction was observed in its entirety at all just again refer the court to activity and the place to be searched but the court of course observed in that case that not only with her role connecting the field to the house but they were beaten path in the defendant and his son were actually seen walking on those beaten path in between the field and the house had that information then included in the affidavit this chris said that it would have establish probable cause next under the higher probable cause standard and we believe that we have