curb but the evidence also established that the police officer didn't just approach the car with the intent the sight or warm mr bagnet they approached the car they had their guns at minimum exhibit i understand that the subject of the intent of the officers pursuant to the u s supreme court is not relevant for this court to take into consideration or the district court in really getting a motion precedence however when the court is looking at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or violations the nature of the stop should be consistent without the officers if they're stopping mr vega for purposes of issuing him a simple warning or simple citation drawing guns and detaining him and ordering out of the car i believe is an reasonable course well there is a knack for the purposes protecting people both the suspect or the accused from having his property lost or destroyed by a negligent officer and on the other hand it's also designed to protect the police from being wrongfully accused of being that negligent officer that is the purpose of the inventories after it is not a ruse for police to justify it after the search of suspects car in this particular case the court was a little unclear but his id which he didn't have the evidence contradictory there was evidence also a trial they had about her driver's license and his wallet i don't have a cite his show to police then at that point can't they search the car whether he's in the car the car wh that's what's the significance of having a car well having stepped out of the car and being detained i believe in effect elevated this from the simple that's the three detention under terry versus ohio so the tackler arrest with  believed that they were free to leave under those circumstances and it was really they were going to take it they should've started to release them rather than going step further and having a dog go to the car at the dock in the search existed exploit the judge found that he didn't have a driver's licen quarter review will by this court for clear error and i think based upon the evidence that was presented either during hearing on the motion to suppress the subsequent evidence that was presented these are the first pro second trial but there was evidence that mr vega had a valid idaho identification or idaho driver's license on his person who had been there was evidence that he didn't i believe that the subsequent evidence came out after the hearing on the muscle or assume the judge could have found that he didn't ok then what then if you didn't have a driver's license yet they can't let him go back in the role and if the exception absorbs the role the narrow interpretation of this exception to the warrant requirement to overcome and i believe that that is not the purpose of the impound exception it had a very strict narrow purpose to protect a suspect from having a police again the purpose of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is the reading ability of a motor vehicle under carroll versus united states reddy and i'm not going to contest the flexibility of the motor vehicle exception in this particular case because of the fact that the vehicles already seized by police that are going it's gone and it's failed i don't know if it was the support of the us supreme court but it's rejected previous arguments by the fence that just because the police have surrounded it and so one of the vehicle and i seized at that ready mobility argument is undermined i believe about the drug structure issue i'm not sure i understood what the relevance of this testimony was as you make the point i don't really see i'm not clear why it should have been admitted by the same token i don't see what harm it something beyond that which the evidence is presented all of the cases that have condoned and found prejudicial which are in my brief which i don't have in front of me at the moment but all of the cases that have found prejudicial air for the admission of that type of evidence have noted that it impermissible allows the jury to infer that there's something else going on out there where there were two things if i understand correctly two opinions that were expressed if there's more to it let me know if i jotted down  unusual may not be unusual i don't know what that about lays a glove on you really but in the other one it's not unusual for street level dealer to have more thus far what does this sort of this tell us i don't believe that the evidence was relevant to tell the jury anything that wasn't i don't believe that transfer i believe in the new trial the evidence showed that it was a plate of food and that's one of the investigating officers testified to that of the plate at least covered with oil and how did jose get the two hundred twenty three gr at the same time as are you guys play the food i believe you have it is unclear so i don't think that they saw that the motor part transferred from jose to mariel at that point but rather it was a plate covered with foil and i don't believe you have an essence expert testimony testimony over a five months period of investigation failed to connect mariel vega and any other way to this conspiracy and under human even if it is the five dollar deal the one it still is his participation and one limited transaction and his knowledge in knowing participation is still questionable based public stated evidence and i believe again that would undermine the sufficiency of the evidence to show that since that was a single transaction and his participation in the single transaction that there was little or no evidence to support the conspiracy based upon this business of the evidence supports a conspiracy charge the evidence of the expert that about the structure of an organization would be prejudicial because it would further ha of what standards should be used should the agents deliberate suppression of that evidence subject to a higher standard of reasonable likelihood that the evidence has affected the verdicts or write them rocks reasonable probability standard i haven't found a case either way that determines that but in terms of the practicalities of the matter the prosecution is the only party that can make it yes you have to turn over that evidence it's not permissible for you to determine whether you think someone was telling the truth and then suppressed the evidence so that under real sixteen or brady or under what theory was it now there's another guy who was there that guy davis was never asked lester did recall that you recall right however i mean the whole reason for getting all the written reports and all that stuff is so that you know one supplier over another effect entrapment doesn't make it doesn't make any difference i see what you're saying and that's in fact that that's had the trial correct and i can understand why i like that question to come out but i'm the courtroom on this occasion and that might have helped him on the entrapment issue now but i want to know something banks is a new supreme court case you're probably aware of it  and there's no way he would even be selling you know seventy five grams around two hundred twenty five grams and there's no evidence at all that he sold to anyone other than the confidential informants so in fact i believe that the class of this case or even stronger than himself or for a f our behalf of the united states let me begin with the issue of whether the district court hearing tonight in the trial to jose based on the alleged rape violation first of all defense counsel mentioned that there's a question as to what standards should be applied in fact prosecutor knowingly uses perjury a trial there is a higher standard absent that particular scenario which has never been contended to be the case here the usual brady standard applied and the supreme court  isn't brady a continuing obligation it is but when was the point he testifies the trial the probably three government decides to impeach is trial testimony with a written confession that's contrary to sprout testimony is that standard cry yes the where the brady standard comes in here is only with respect to impeachment and whether i think really it's whether eight impeached s impeached by some evidence if there was some contrary evidence that put the witness back another life in a positive light or explained that people would introduce that it would take over and that's correct and the at that point your honor there is certainly no question that whether he testify credibly or not about whether maher was his supplier had some varying on his credibility of course that's after observing first hand the entire trial those two issues were not connected in this case was there an argument made with did you try the case i did not try the argument made by the prosecutor at the trial that the to the that confidential informants to jose that person was not a government agent that was the government's friend who has a claimed was pestering him with respect to the smaller deals with respect to the final deal where mario was that continued to be the that did go to grad and mario was the supplier but did that go to one of the defendant was entrapped in this entire case and that that in trammel defense could have been put on without ever talking about who the wants because it's immaterial it could be done without the supplier but the question is whether impeaching him like making it look like he lied about his supplier was could reasonably be taken the suppressed statement here was that at the outset of the interview he said my supplier was one and warren's friend brought the drugs over to me at noon the second part of that statement was demonstrably fal because there was surveillance testimony that a car had pulled up and the only car that had called up during the relevant time period was mario's car meaning between the time that the informant i had a conversation a part but even fact overall the statement was far more damaging and it was not this it was not even the story that he gave a try the story he gave the trial about one having brought the materials over ten days earlier that inconsistent with the written confession in his system at least in this one part with the trial your honor the record here shows the prosecutors were not aware that that prior statement had been made it was not included in the da six reports the agent told the prosecutors and about it basically the day after trial as soon as the prosecutors learned of it they instructed the agent to create a new da si what i think is most significant for you to consider is not the recent banks brady case but the supreme court's previous brady case and that's strickland v greene and that was a case in essentially in which there  was a government witness who was the only eyewitness to the abduction prior to the victim's murder and made a number of statement describing this as a sort of terrifying induction not which showed that actually two weeks after the event this witness could not identify the victim as being the person in the car that she hadn't even remembered being at the mall where this abduction took place and that her daughter kind of job her memory and in fact the witness was even thanking the police for being patient with her full title of memories and if she had written it off even after she remembered this whole sort of terrifying interaction it's some kind of trivial college students playing in there the defense argued that the relevance of this material was that the defendant should have been convicted of first degree murder not capital murder and if this evidence was relevant and the supreme court disagreed basically finding two things first with respect to guilt that proved that the defendant was an equal partner was sufficient for capital murder so even though the prosecutor had argued that this defendant was the moving party in the abduction because the witness essentially testified that he was the person who was banging on the car and inferred from that that he was this sort of ringleader in the later murder that was not necessary to the government's proof because as long as the t equal partners that was sufficient and here they had to they had to be equal partners because the murder victim had basically been killed by dropping a seventy pound rock on her head and one had to hold her down the other had to drop the rock  very similar to what is going on here again we're not saying that it had no the airing on his credibility the question is was his credibility really undermined as a result of the lack of rehabilitation on this particular narrow issue whether he had it's not necessarily unusual for a supplier to act as a delivery person what is it means not necessarily unusual maybe unusual maybe not unusual or does that mean i think it's not a very well phrased question i think what it was intended to show reasonably understood as saying it is not it is not probable it's not contrary to my experience for the supplier to deliver their own strong and small just reported you can ask ask him isn't it true that you know drug dealers don't usually intrust large amounts of drugs and no one couriers were precluded from asking that all this testimony was probative  was this person acting as the supplier or not and that was the question and that goes to the type of testimony that this court has allowed in other cases for example where somebody acting as a lookout based on their expert experience was somebody in gauging in counter surveillance was correct was mario acting as a supplier and that falls into the permissible range of testimony describing based on expert testimony whether somebody is filling a permissible we're not really even in the area of the impermissible testimony which is what happens in iran conspiracy cases and whether you can ask to us for knowledge simply based on that person's role in the conspiracy that's what we're doing we're  i think we've laid it out in pretty great detail in our brief i think that we are the confusion comes here has to do with the district court's findings and the district court found page one sixty five and sixty six that officer family was credible when he said he saw the vehicle parked more than eighteen inches from the curb he was credible and that when the officer asked whether the defendant had a driver's license the defendant said no therefore we were going to do the inventory search and there's certainly no case law as counsel indicates saying that you have to wait and take the possible guns or drugs or whatever else is in that car and so went to the impound lot before you can do the tortie search that you can't do that while you're waiting for the tow truck but there was a second independent ground and on both of these grounds the evidence was properly admitted and that is that there was probable cause to search the car for narcotics violations because as a district court found two valence had observed during the time period when jose is waiting for the supplier to come only one car pull up there is an exchange observed and although it is true that the officers did not see coil going out they only saw the plate of food going in no other car pulls up during that time period and shortly thereafter the same officer who observes the same surveillance officer sees the car and radios for it to be justifying the stop of the vehicle was probable cause that criminal activity was afoot in other words an automobile exception to the warrant requirement however the question i have and if i may if there was such probable cause to begin with and why did the court put on and i believe that undermines the prosecution's argument that there was probable cause to substantiate the stop based upon the automobile exception and then just very briefly if i may be for the court understood the court actually stays on brief pages twenty twenty two and there's the quotations from the district court in this particular case where he indicated the case lacks the complexity that typically is around in those types of cases where they introduce evidence of the structure of drug organizations and based simplicity of the basic nature of this particular grew between the vegas socially just the brothers and the y and those are the only people that i believe work ever connected to this alleged conspiracy that was not a very complex structure organization the entire line of authority based upon that was a relevant and if the court looks at twenty twentieth's or the briefest shows of the court indicated he would be willing to let testimony from the expert regarding packaging value dosage those that's on march twenty seventh those two pages one twenty nine and one thirty i believe based upon that that's the that's the also the scope of what the course there was also even willing to permit in the first place and i believe under four or three should have been excluded thank you just one to two whether he felt the drugs or not that's not the issue it's he's right out there saying yes i did i did steal the drugs it's going to whether the jury perceives it as a truthful person and other than the issue of whether it's you know i kept calling him the only other the prejudicial effect that the brady evidence would have against are you right right right and in doing that i think we're going to look at exactly how much time and how many comments