didn't look at all the evidence presented at the suppression hearing including the evidence that the government presented that mr merrill had the keys to the car was in the driver's seat and in fact claimed ownership of the car  defendant secularization not the government's declaration the defendant declaration the defendant's declaration contains no information whatsoever which of these the court to believe that mr romero had abandoned the vehicle th but also set forth all the facts which would lead to the conclusion that mr narrow did have standing that he was in the driver's seat of the car when the stock occurred that he had the keys to the car in his pocket and car or borrow the car or and that's precisely why this case is so different from that he gives us we don't know what the district court was thinking we don't know it's just court with thinking well i've cobbled together all th statements which the defendant me throughout that encounter and he was entitle to credit the officers version of those statements and i find my calling all together all the statements that standing has been abandoned but the district court did not do court that i looked at the declaration of the defendant and there's no affirmative showing of standing therefore there's no standing and and i said certainly if the district court had gone through the record and articulate forth the essential fassel findings in the record and that doesn't need to be in writing it could be orally and transcribed and that is mandatory for two cases that stated faster than to try and in both those cases the issue on appeal wasn't very set forth and that he could not look at the evidence presented by the government and their case was clear that you have to look at all of the evidence in singleton this court said yes the defendant could show standing by saying that the government's evidence look credible in felt in the defendant said he did not live in the back out and the government said he didn't live in the back house and then each one of them argued the opposite the government argued that he had no standing the place you could see a gun from one track the influx of the car or behind the car the record not clear that the gun was in plain view it certainly isn't because the gun was in such claims you know that one could see the obliterated serial number and again these are all factual findings that the even though we cannot find on an alternative basis that probable cause would indicate that the court has listened to the testimony that officer and believes what that officer in his stead and the inference would be that whatever that officer said regarding the facts that the court has accepted that and found that to be true now certainly it's not equivalent to a specific expressed factional fighting as to a particular event or a particular statement what what what what's hopefully the case is there is a crime in m is equivalent to lack of standing merely because he's in the car in the car to be stolen merely because he's in the car doesn't necessarily justify the conclusion that he's got a possessory interest in it now certainly when the the court was focusing on the ruling was very short we know that but in the ruling the court was definitely focusing on whether or not the defendant had said anything either in the declaration or in testimony during the suppression hearing that would support the conclusion of the reflex dictation of privacy so the focus was actually on that standing if you will as the find or equivalent to a reasonable expectation of privacy and the court felt after hearing all the testimony reviewing the declaration felt that that had not been demonstrated by by the defendant now there's nothing to indicate to the  court and i have no reason to believe that the court ignored the fact that the key was in his pocket and he was seen in the driver's seat because it's really going to court saying that is that well he's the owner of the car but yes i mean i can understand district court saying well he's here testifying that he has no interest and nascar and he's asking me to suppress the stuff that was found and i'm in fact he owned the car well certainly the court was looking at what occurred on april thirteenth and his actions would justify the conclusion that he abandoned it at that time and then he did not because he did not demonstrate any possessory interest at the outset i mean you can have a van it's something you don't have to begin with and if the court felt that keith again i would agree with the court that the key is some indication of possessory interest in the automobile however in the context of all the other facts i mean a person can bailey when he first arrived at that scene had a certain amount of knowledge and clearly the events which unfolded gave him an increasing body of knowledge which would support that the court again the ruling was rather brief but did say that notwithstanding the standing issue that the court credited officer believes testimony and found that he had reasonable suspicion to do what he did that that's a well to the extent that he has found in concluded in its ruling that the officer's actions were justified that day and of course the officers feed the gun from was making that finding or not to give the answer just can't work as to probable cause for the arrest of the defendant and what's the at what point where it to the extent that the district court credited officer believes testimony about seeing the pills in the clear plastic bag in the center console and the gun in plain view before he entered the serial number was in fact altered that he would have had probable cause to see that gun from and now wouldn't be tainted by and illegal i carry for the government's position at asa billy didn't do anything illegal at all well i understand but i said yes they did not have reasonable suspicion at the time and i think told the defendant to sit down there's that