of article two section eleven the montana constitution of the years the four here and the federal constitution and there's never been any disagreement a rule deviation from that in montana he's long however montana constitution does have a unique privacy right under article two section him it says the right of individual privacy is essential to the well being of a free society and shall not be infringed without showing a compelling state essentially what happened in this case is there was a search warrant issued by judge mccoy and the search warrant application was made by state officer it was issued by judgment plain and ultimately and all the evidence seized as a result of that would not be admissible and essentially the case was dismissed after that and nothing more was heard or until two this case is different because not only do we have a heightened a broader privacy right in montana but in this case the court actually made a decision a court made a decision from a state officer requesting a state search warrant and it's very own grant of that state a search warrant trying to round review the record and said and i would not have issued that certainly would have i known these detail but when a judge a state court judge is issuing a search warrant he's considering state law and state constitution and that's what's in the back of his mind and in the state court judge's mind what's in the back of their we have a heightened sense of privacy in my town well if you're trying to predict what another judge is going to do you might have predicted the if we won a lot and i am not in montana will try and win a federal court that's very different from mine in the federal court but i'm saying from the very beginning only did that back when he went to another state court judge to get an application and that it had a warrant and that is the application that we are dealing with in this federal case i think that was a material fact that should have been provided to the court or on verifiable third hand information later and the way the agency was able to bolster that was by clearly linking the two and in doing that i believe that was a material omission that resulted in  don't have very much time i think that a focus on what's important or try to and with all due respect to co counsel my take on this case is a little bit different i don't think that you need to adopt a new rule or a new approach or get into mechanism to ferret out bad information so the policy underlying the whole procedure is to shoot is to not let law enforcement use information that's that's gained illegally and that's what happened another judge and not tell the judge that the evidence and paragraph one when you get past the boilerplate has all been know but i think again it's the that the record supports the inference that he doesn't tell the court the judge that because then he has to explain that the stuff in paragraph one was from her anonymous tracing that information back to the story yes that would require this court to make some inferences and conclusions but i think the record supports those there are facts known who talked about her today who never be taking a bunch of drugs to florida on this flight there was none of that honor i don't please don't take my brevity as making light of the arguments made by counsel i just have some brief comments and then i really want to turn this over to questions because i want to start with this premise we need to come into federal court and we need to come into judge moore is courtroom and what can you and then why he made the ruling that he did and the bottom line is everything complained about by the defendants in this case to you know was the same complaints made to judge my lawyer he knew all of these mistakes he knew all of the patients he knew was other evidence other than the prior tape that was destroyed and there was another agent there agent lewis who testified as well although he didn't have contemporaneous notes he was able to provide judg testimony about what he heard about this conversation so really the issue regarding however we want to phrase it i think it's a supremacy argument more than anything not collateral estoppel but that that wonder if it's not clear at all whether that was even based on the montana constitution or it was if it was a state judge who probably very rightly so was very upset at the agents who are appearing in front of him on a routine basis the record in this case though is is confusing but to sum it up clearly there were three warrants in this case each one builds upon each other david chase was