fingerprints even if they were investigatory i think under guzman gronow it doesn't make any difference ok but i talk about this for the first thing to print first off i'm trying to figure out what we're supposed to do with the district but my tentative inclination is to find that there wasn't there wasn't sufficient cause for the arrest which is quite a different proposition from finding in this race based i agree even if the court includes that if there was insufficient probable cause for the arrest think can they be taken for both purposes and how do we reconcile a fall of a dual reason for purposes of establishing his true identity but also because the officer testified that he this guy must be wanted for something based on the way he behaved in the field can't we also conclude that the prints were taken for that's a good story for us to find out whether he was wanted for some other well i think the term fingerprints for an investigatory purpose derives from davis which and that's a circumstance in which a defendant was picked up and fingerprinted slowly for investigative purposes and that brings us back to the he does not fight and why is he taking these fingerprints well because he wants to find things out he wants to find out who is this guy and he's taking the fingerprints because he's arrested and because the routine processing following over an  a routine consequence of arresting somebody and that's the distinction between what happens in vegas those people were picked up just for the purpose of getting their fingerprints they weren't arrested they were scooped up and fingerprinted that's a far different the question what should the standard before applying davis and i believe the standard should be davis applies only when the sole purpose for taking those fingerprints is for investigatory purposes not when there is a arrest which the officer promises on probable cause even if that prob because showing is later found to be insufficient and here once again there was another just support with the officer did that it evidence and those are your cases the goodman colonel in charge of roses in both of those cases if you recall the officers approached the defendant and before any illegality ask either what is your name and mr goodman  gentleman were illegal but the initial identification was from an independent source and so therefore it was appropriate to gather further information about the identity because that independent source they would be nothing improper let's forget about the illegal arrests for a minute there would be nothing improper in issuing a green teresa or a court order requiring mr hernande states illegally without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that he could get a court order saying provide us with fingerprint yes generally that's correct and what the district court is doing here is saying from this point on into the future i'm not going to let the government do that you cannot get a set of fingerprints from this you know it's impressed that that may be the practical effect at this point i'm not sure that's the court broader ruling because in the in the government's say i can identify him i know who he is i think they would have arguable evidence for independent source by which they could now present to judge read a request for a head reading exemplar and say this isn't teated by what and perhaps they are going to be foreclosed from any prosecution but it's because of the teet of the initial stop and directing it forward to their subsequent activity all they're trying to do is avoid the results of the suppress loses jurisdiction over the body of the person the question is who is this person and how how do we know who he is in the only two ways i know that do it are either through fingerprints or through it seems to me then the government could make up a cation for the immigration file to test picture first picture or thumb print versus thumb print then do further testing but they can't use the information gathered as part as part of the illegal i believe race based arrest that taints that first identification where the officer sitting in his in his office this is really trolling around trying to find out is there something i could the officer indicated he believed although we don't know why that there he was wanted for something and he was looking first on thing to charge him with he called the ins to investigate because he's hispanic maybe he's here illegally suppressed we're talking about a jurisdictional matter and the case law says that if you go out and you kidnap somebody totally illegally and bring them into court and you've got a case against them that preexisted the means of that kidnapping and not peanuts i think part of the problem in this area of the law is there has been some confusion in the courts and in talking about the idea of you can never suppress the body being somehow you can never suppress identification evidence and i think we're dealing with two different concepts for dealing with the jurisdictional concept of having a person you don't suppress you know and gathering evidence getting ready for trial well it comes awful close to that because i  prosecuted for crimes that he is continuing to commit well if that's the law then there's something wrong with our law that can't be the right answer i think it is the right answer there's another reason to get there because the law doesn't have to make outside a large public grocery store in the middle of the afternoon etc etc i think when you get to the notion and i don't think this needs to be the answer but another way to look at this is that if this is a race based ar ultimate is and he is president right now today well that's only about it states without the permission of the attorney general but the commission in fact was the entry across the border at a time in the past but it's but it's what the crime continues t the case is hold is they don't know for years of their evidence of identity is suppressed they can't they ask for that fingerprint evidence to prove because it's tainted from the original stuff so i think using a defendant's presence in the courtroom cannot be attacked as the fruit of an illegal arrest and the context of that just conversation was whether the defendant's physical characteristics could be used as part of in court identification and i think it's important to point out that i even offered to have the finger printing done in the courtroom in the presence of the jury at the time of trial to bring this case clearly within the holding of humphry so the chain argument d