whether the questions posed to my client do you live here how long have you lived here which bedroom is yours whether those questions constituted interrogation under the miranda rule the district court held that none of those questions constituted interrogation and important to me understanding why the district court made a mistake and that  is the surrounding facts that led up to those questions and for me the most the most essential fact is the randall factor the you don't you don't address that very well and the district court did address that and to me if you if you can't explain away the reason why randolph didn't make the make this if not routine at least required question then i don't think you can prev some logic to it but i'd take they could not complete a search without knowing the extent of what or where to search well i think i think the without northeaster something and so they look around and they don't do any questioning of your client and they look around and they well that looks like the northeast bedroom to us so we'll go in there and in fact it was mr rodriguez's bedroom rights under under randolph so they either have to from your view be quiet so the only option then is to get a warrant which will get which will leave your client pain for how many hours who knows or to ask a question to to clarify the scope of the consensual forty they have and when he identifies it st of all is there any part of the as or any part the premises that he would have a total koach you claim to be and if there is then request his consent i can imagine more practical police work i would agree and i know and i would understand why the right of the police would not want to put themselves in the position of later trying to fall back on apparent authority or some argument like that but  the elements of the offense just like i mean that's my role but they they can they can warn him and it's our position that they have to warn him under miranda because of the significance of those kinds of statements don't think so because because an n a n a drug case like this one it all comes down to mere presence versus complicity and mere presence versus constructive possession and when you are asking unwarned questions of  identifying himself as the roommate with drug ties and so i think that the mistake of the district court here was was not recognizing the significance of those questions in the context of an active drug investigation in a house where there's a pound of methamphetamine in plain view and a nonevent of fide drug connected roommate  it come directly from a dolphin cracked yes somebody living in the house also who also was trafficking in drugs yes but before before sergeant heath got there he knew there was more drugs more money at that house he knew there was a roommate and so asking unworn questions about do you live here that's tantamount to or are you the roommate what are your ties to these drugs so w a line between the routine and the recently likely to incriminate which is all contextual and factually dependent and on these facts with the drugs in the house the unknown drug connected roommate  these questions cross that line now the the other mistake i think that the district court made here briefly touch on that was expanding this court's holding in the flight case the district wasn't interrogation was not because cheryl authority to consent questions are free game it was held not to be interrogation because control over the entire residents had already  residence he also told the officers where they could find those drugs on top of the microwave that's reform which makes this look more like interrogation i'm sorry all of which makes this look more like interrogation well when the because they had to determine who could give lawful consent they asked the person that was there oh i thought the whole the whole scene scenario was find out if he has a bedroom or if he does which he is and then consent because that's what randolph requires correct and that's what all in hindsight the safe way to do that or this this issue is to ask predawn photos he have a bedroom and then they still says yes trafficking in drugs but he didn't explain in what capacity he couldn't give any details i'm guessing that law enforcement want to follow up on that i'm sure they would have and they did as a matter of fact after the but at the time they were just going but i guess i'm thinking of what's in the officers heads when they go into this to this home they have information that the person that they've just encountered is the roommate with a room here where there may be drugs and suspected that he had drugs and they certainly want to search it so why why aren't those two different those questions different one which one is your room directly links mr top iraq to that room now you could separately sort of a consent based on other information a separate question but why is that not a question that seeking incriminating information and linking him directly to a place that law enforcement really suspects we had no information his admission did not implicate him in trafficking and again officers were people that came out of the amount of drugs can indicate trafficking right i'm sorry the amount to drugs can indicate trafficking right several cases say that the size to quietly most certainly a pound and it was in different quantities right there therefore when you just talk about something that's in a room it can mean trafficking almost like snapping your fingers could be if no one else claim that those drugs were hit again they they were solely focused on rodriguez's row they want to get in there no doubt about it and for them to lawfully get in there they're trying to get voluntary consent asked and the reason they wanted to go in there is because they suspected there would be drugs in there and no doubt about it was so when they asked mr baer rodriguez but that's your room that linked him up i don't see how that maybe maybe you've got another reason for the question but i'm not sure how that doesn't link him to at link time i said did i implicate him in a crime until they found the drugs the case was pretty clear that if you ask a question that turns out to later be incriminating it's what the officers know at the time they're asking the questions had they seen drugs in his room and then asked him is that your room that's different that would most certainly implicate him in the crime of possession with intent had officers known that there was going to be drugs  well the district court i think articulated the response to this by cared right to the questions in this context is related to the administrative purpose of getting effective  consent of course administrative purpose that sort of magic words for for avoiding in custody and the requirement is there any said case law support that the ministry of purpose usually means booking and that sort of those sorts and round off and yes of cases where officers just trying to get legal authority that's what they're trying to do is that there will be flecked case just so guarded restricted because it says in the that's my row and more importantly the defendant saying he's a cop he's involved that would i came in at had this case gone to trial i think the end result would have been the same but more importantly i don't believe because of the officers three questions and how they're trying to go about properly getting voluntary consent that we should make an exception in the law that if it may lead to incriminating evidence then that rises to the level of interrogation the law as it stands now is it what's reasonably likely again i submit that they had no idea what was in the room yes they suspect it but they weren't certain and because i want certain was found in there there was nothing wrong with their three questions that they posed to the to find it again because they believed in their mind they had to get the lawful authority to get in that room in the st place and that's the reason for them asking those questions so it that if there's no more questions for me i submit the matter thank you thank you that the government here doesn't cite any other case to support their argument other than flack inflect was decided what fifteen years ago and i think down the authority to consent issue there alternatives were either ask mr rodolfo war pull out their miranda card because questions of contacts with this residents are