issues here are whether the search warrant that they got for the hotel room was a direct result of an illegal search and also whether even if they legally obtained that warrant it states probable cause after redacting the illegally obtained information the officers the first point the officers here testified that once there's a reason to arrest we get a warrant and another officer testified that there wasn't going to be any further searching until warrant was obtained and that's in reference to what they saw once they got in the bedroom part and knocked the cabinet or  the casing or whatever it is off the wall forced we knocked it off and found drugs so once they see that they say well we're going to get a warrant getting the warrant was the direct result of that illegal conduct there also the pipe and so forth when they came in yes but that that testimony was taken out of context because the officer there is testifying that's seventy pages either early or after because what he's being asked there is what if you don't get consent at that point he's not even testifying about having gone in there and found the drugs it's a totally different question in a totally different context he's saying that's what i would have done if i hadn't gotten consent to go in the in the room in other words he's out in the hall and they're saying well what if he hadn't gotten consent or they might even be referring to the fair inference that that would have applied anywhere along the way well because they were explicitly what they would have been sent so they're not operating now why are we in the position of what the officer testified as you know we're in the we're in the situation it's more than hypothetical  but of course it didn't happen this way but if they didn't get consent or if the consent they didn't get consent that was lawful was the ultimate finding but it seems to me that maybe that that thought this might come up so i made a note that i believe it's page seventy four the motion hearing transcript that's where he's asked what would you have do if you hadn't gotten consent and he does say i would have gotten a warrant but it's at page one thirty four one thirty five where it's  totally different context now they've already gone into the wall they knocked the covering off the wall they found the drugs and it's at that point they say well we just don't get a war we are going to arrest someone and once we found the drugs we're going to do an arrest so it's just not reasonable and fair or even in context to take that comment about what i would do if i didn't get consent that's totally unrelated to this discussion is we don't we need a finding from the judge on that point well that if you say it's unrelated but isn't that a question of how you interpret the testimony and we just need a factual finding if the judge says i believe that they would have sought a warrant anyway and we review that for clear air well that the judge said that once they wouldn't have found they wouldn't have sought a warrant but for the illegality then you would win needed here yes but it's fully developed by the record another is you've got the testimony and the facts make it clear that they're exploiting that illegal search of the wall to get the warrant i mean that's that's clear i mean the judge decided well you've got the judge premised on the on page seventy four that we would have sought the warrant anyway what if she believes that you know what that was they were simply being asked if he didn't get consent and i believe that was consent if not to get into the room initially had not received consent what would you have done regarding your observations and all the other things you learned that night regarding the hotel room yes and there i would have froze the room and called for a search warrant yes i situation because they were clear i mean if you look at one thirty four and one thirty five they're clear about their they're talking about what they're doing or what they thought they could have done after they find the drugs that's clear there so they're specifically even if they did say that earlier here they're making clear what they would have done once they what they could do once they found the drugs that's absolutely clear why does you know why so so th you have to make that finding one i mean when they when they when they go in the room with what they thought was was the authority to consent to do it and they see the camera and the at that point they can certainly freeze everything and go get a warrant if they could have done it from what they saw on entering but instead they thought the consent carried them on into the s well they're just exploiting an illegal search i mean the court what they have to live with now is the court found that stain in that room and knocking the panel off the wall was illegal what they could get in their final once they got in there and the judge said you  know that this person didn't have consent at that point to let you in there the way that that bedroom was set up so anything they do after they notice that is illegal and the court ruled that the government didn't appeal it you're stuck with that  this is all planar review the government says because all of the focus in the district court was on the second prong of independent source nobody including the district court focused  on whether the whether a finding was what finding was a fight whether a finding was needed and what it would be on would have applied other otherwise right the government the government didn't raise independence or didn't support it th point mentioned a case but they didn't really support it but it's obvious that this is exploiting one point mention the case i mean i think it's obvious here i would have been the government attorney i don't think i would have would have occurred to me that i needed more than than the testimony on page seventy four well the first part of the independent source doctrine is that they would have gotten the warrant even if they hadn't done that they said no we wouldn't have gotten so it's you can't just hypothesize what could they have done they said we wouldn't have gotten the warrants unless if we hadn't found those drugs there was no plan to get a warrant but in the time i have remaining i'd like to just address it in terms of can this should the case be reversed simply on the holding the district court made that these remaining facts if you take care way all the illegal facts illegally obtain woman's name but the two other people who were in the room it's tenuous to tie that meth pipe to him when he wasn't even there and there are two other people there who were and they admitted drug use so what it what have you got the government says well the dogs w if it's probable cause to it to obtain a warrant to search the entire suite well then i don't think they can get a probable cause to search the entire suite because two people and one was not there ok they come in they find these other two people in the room they see the mouth quite well at some point baez says you know what's in the what's in the safe and he says well drugs are not the you know the locked cabinet well but that's i don't know if the court made a six was a finding but this is that is after they're already in the room and they don't even have consent to be there in other words once that was said after it should have been clearly officers and as the court found they didn't have consent to be in that room so i don't think that's and i don't think the court said that that's part of the problem because our facts are going toward probable cause i wrote them all down and i don't think the court relied on that  but if i could just say say one thing about good faith it's not good faith to go and get a warrant where you've just knocked a hole or knock the panel off the wall and seized your legal illegally seized drugs which the court  bit confused as to whether or not the defendant first cite the he asked this court to focus on the second prong the probable cause problem right just as he did in the district court that first prong as to whether a sexually mature hood defendant waives the government or it is the government's burden and we satisfied that burden by putting on the evidence and that's that's the testimony we've been talking about a page seventy four and seventy five and we also cited the independent source doctrine at each step throughout this pretrial litigation and at no point and what you just focused on the second prong as i understand it you never said there's a first prong in the judge needs to make a finding that that's correct your honor and if i could explain how that came about that defendant was the first to file briefing after the motions hearing in this case and in that briefing he's the first to say the independent source doctrine doesn't apply because after applying the affidavit deletion rule there is no probable cause the government responded to that post trial briefing and said yes there was doctrine in its argument including in its facts recitation the fact that ops a group or would have obtained a warrant in the absence of any illegality is an objection or comment to the p s r this is an objection to the easy to get a finding you you need one arguably you need one and you could get one by just asking your honor certainly that probably would have been the better practice but in an adversarial system ours the parties are the ones who framed the issues for the district court the supreme court has coined this the party presentation when it really goes hand in hand with concepts of not this court's practice of not entertaining arguments that are made for the first time an appeal and concepts of waiver that where defendant has not raised an issue the can't save it keep in his back pocket and play gotcha at the appellate level if he had contested the fact officers would have gotten a warrant and clearly they would have looked at all the circumstances that were going on at that time sergeant cardenas testified that in his opinion if he had just let  and had not arrested him it would have been negligent for him to not follow up at the hotel and the really the point i really want to make is that there is no ambiguity in this record officer gruber testified that at the moment within seconds when he walked in the hotel room after good be no let him in and he saw the meth pipe containing residue on the end table she would have gotten a warrant based on that meth pipe based on everything he knew from the traffic stop drug paraphernalia but state law is irrelevant to the fourth amendment analysis state constraints on an officer's ability to arrest doesn't inform whether there was probable cause to search you about th things you learned that night regarding that hotel room isn't that the question that you rely on the answer is i would have got i would have frozen the place and gotten a warrant what to how do we read the things you learned that night regarding the hotel room because that's that's a pretty broad statement and clearly the district court said some of the things you saw that night in the hotel room need to be suppressed so is that necessarily as clear clear of a statement as as you present i think it is your honor in context the follow up question officer gruber makes clear that he said based on what i saw and if you look at that that what we saw what we saw and if you look at what the the line of questioning that's going on the discussion at that point they are only talking about entrance into the hotel room they haven't gone beyond that initial entrance and observation of the math that's what they're talking about they haven't gotten to moving to the back bedroom they haven't gotten to seeing the arm are hav gotten to the dog sniff they haven't gotten to popping off the sink vanity and finding four pounds of methamphetamine the context of that testimony concerns only that meth pipe that they saw in the room any other testimony about when and whether they would have gotten a warrant concerned officer groupers belief that he could not arrest these individuals in the hotel room until he had probable cause for another rest of the offense that's a completely different scenario and there's no dispute under these facts that officer gruber would have gotten a warrant and if we even go beyond just seeing the meth i look at the other lawful information they obtained one could be no gave consent now i also would like to correct something the defendant said he said that the district court found that they didn't have consent to be in the back bedroom that that's not true the district court found that correct but in in correct so even looking at that the scope of that search that the district court found to be valid at that point they had seen the meth pipe they knew all the facts and circumstances surrounding the traffic stop they'd also see pound packaging in an open top garbage can ok what is context sometimes the sum total of the parts is bigger than the individual pieces and that's what we have here so the officers had seen pound packaging they'd seen a meth pipe they had two individuals who told them they'd recently been using drugs they had a locked arm war with cell phone live streaming it and they had by a statement that if there were drugs in that hotel room it obviously being in the arm are it's inconceivable to think that the officers one time gotten a hearing transcript is clear that that dog sniff had occurred prior to the discovery of the drugs in the hotel room because the doc had done the sniff before he came up to the hotel room so we have all that evidence inconceivable that officers wouldn't have gotten a warrant at least at that point and that's the reason it went uncontested in the district court of course they would have gotten a warrant and the district court doesn't commit reversible error explanation by the district court after the court concludes that the there was no consent to go into the lock are more and you needed a warrant to do that to to do that to get in there but i didn't see an explanation of why that required suppressing when they went past the arm or into the into the i guess the bathroom why it why they why they the why the of the consent that the district court upheld to go in the back didn't apply to that yet the court suppressed what was that with was that explained it was an entirely explained this is a factual matter the sink was in the back bedroom it was in a separate bathroom and what the district court how this there was no consent to pop off the top of that it wasn't a destructive thing officer gruber testified that he'd frequently that in that particular hotel that's where he found people see him things w there that the district court found that that should be suppressed but why was that sentencing in the understand the briefs the government's brief said the government agreed that he was i'm accountable for the drugs found in the sink is that i thought there was that fourth amendment suppression doesn't apply at sentencing you're correct your honor that is the law but i will state that it didn't affect the guideline range but the ranges between i believe it's one point five actual  four point five and there was one point seven eight actual kilograms of methamphetamine an arm are and somewhere around one in the sink i said so didn't affect the range just to clear this hopefully clear this up in the district court's memorandum opinion as part of my it down at page twenty one the court says upon entering the back bedroom the officers could see in plain view the elaborate cell phone surveillance system invisibly padlocked are more at this point the officers became aware of facts strongly suggesting that divino the woman did not have mutual use or control of the back bedroom and that the occupant had an expectation of privacy they'll see