backpack we don't have that here in this into knowledge for purposes of constructive possession with the case law makes clear is that there has to be evidence that mr cunningham had the power to exercise communion in control over his codefendant back and we don't have drug transaction in his car with drugs in his trunk of his car he engaged in what was clearly counter surveillance driving maneuvers drove into a parking lot very slowly drove out drove back and parked in an area that were no other cars were different than what we have here with respect to the drugs and mr carter's backpack i felt it would be on point if what happened here was that car and cunningham walked to the contents car not cars car they get into the car they drive to a drug necessarily follow but if least to logically and sufficiently follow that that he was aiding and abetting cordy's drug possession particularly in light of the similar packaging of the drugs in the backpack in the drugs that cutting him was  same house you have them together chasing away the person they perceive to be helping the government how to get around that probably because that's completely consistent with kind of him simply being a street level guy who makes sales on street you have somebody who comes to that house with the c i who violates the code of the street there he's trying to meet he's coming to the door he doesn't know any of these guys they chase him away that doesn't mean or and carter is the one who the question before the court today your honor your honour's is whether this jury was so rational they'd given all the inferences to the government the verdict must be overturned it is not a standard that counsel has suggested about competing inference is the standard is clear and counsel has also suggested in his brief and i quote from page one of his reply brief that the essential question is which  scenarios is more implausible because the government's hypothesis is not more likely than mr cunningham's convictions on counts three and four cannot stand this is simply flat out wrong the law in this the wall of the land has been settled and the supreme court in jackson versus virginia and i quote from that decision the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt we are not here to talk about competing inferences we're here to talk about whether the government's inferences were reasonable this is a very deferential standard of review and the supreme court in jackson versus virginia me clear was why is it so together beginning with it his actions of selling crack cocaine that morning we have testimony on this is conceded by counsel that he's selling crack cocaine in front of that house at least six times in forty minutes and to the record we're quoting here knew both the good and your honor i'm building to that just like in the if elisa case it's a grain by grain analysis but certainly there are at least ten key points of evidence here and that is that the bottles are identical to what is found in the bag at least three hundred fifty three crack vials repeat tops that are found inside the bag but together with those bottles is found pretty package marijuana and there is crack cocaine and there is a loaded handle loaded firearm within a bullet or rated c or a serial number that's found right there in the midst of all those other tools so they have to be together the relationship with with carter the to the mat work together cunningham it's a contest it was sellin the crack cocaine but throughout all of this case what we see is two men working observations but again there are too many critical pieces of observations or evidence that ties it's meant to gether that show that they're working in concert to promote their drug or drug trafficking and would help me with that because i point cunningham continues to sell cell transactions two three four five and six and then he enters the home at that point but at that point something very significant happens which is the police officer send in the c i and this is very significant because immediately in the testimony is clear these two men see this as a threat which in fact it was it was a threat to their business and they they acted aggressively they chased him they threatened him they cursed at store this was a controlled purchase but they didn't think they were it was being surveilled you know your honor the what i'm saying is that the testimony is clear that what they said is you're not from around here don't ever over mr carter has it been busted for selling drugs what several months before and the last thing in the world he wanted to do was to have anything to do with the drug trade and when  somebody came and said you're a drug dealer sell me drugs he went bananas and said get the hell out of here i'm in enough trouble already and i mean that's  there's just an inference that just as plausible as the one you're saying that i believe they thought but they weren't being surveilled until they went out and somebody said they were going to call the dealing testimony as to mr carter having been arrested before it was not before the jury so it would not have been an inference before the jury that was at the motion to suppress that was offered so that although there may have been can be other competing inferences the standard here is one zero rational inference by the jury that they thought that these men would have perceived this to be a threat to their business they're already being seen they've already been seen acting in concert while cunningham is selling the vials and ultimately the files that are found in the backpack confirm that they've been acting in concert because in fact he's selling what is coming out of that book bag but after that to read what is significant your honor it is that they open the door and they're together because if you're on it remembers earlier in the in the case cutting him enters the house with the book back by himself but when he leaves following the threat he returns with cunningham and they look they look both ways three different times in the record that testimony is they look both ways and these men are not crossing the street your honor they're walking down the sidewalk and they're moving the boom back that has their stash and all their accoutrements of their enterprise down the sidewalk around the corner to a car to place a safety where the house they don't know if the police are commie big cuz this man has just said i'm calling the cops you just assaulted me so they're gettin out of there and that in france and the jury could draw is supported by the evidence now when they get to the core are carter has the keys he opens the trunk he puts the bag in there cunningham is right there are two pairs of eyes and they're securing their stash in the car now when the items are recovered together with mr carter's he's been inside that bag he himself supply himself with those files and he couldn't kill himself at any moment to get back in that bag walking with mr carter while he's in the house with mr carter imagined whether it caught what it had engaged in hand to hand transactions before they were arrested that it would i would suggest have been a different decision now in this case with garth as well the concern of the court packaged vials in the context of this concert of action with his codefendant tell us that he's been in that bag and in that battle all the tools of the trade a scene out of looted handgun with a blue ribbon serial number is otherwise a rational jury cannot convict beyond a reasonable doubt in the jenkins case that was certainly a possibility that mr jenkins who was seated more plausible it's a fifty one percent test i thought it was no rational juror why had i think no rational in this instance here they are certainly a lack of probable cause to arrest rocky parker in addition there was a lack of probable cause to seize the vehicle let's go over the facts of the case really what happens here is approximately nine thirty in the morning there's this drug activity that's being observed by his parole officer hendry it's cunningham who's doing it there's no transactions that happen with no reference to park their car leaves the house goes up the street comes back with the green back and goes into the house now there are several transaction it's amazing how two defense lawyers can argue the significance of a particular fact but have a different significance it has to do with the reopening this is the real upping transaction this is a transaction where carter we're cutting him goes to the walk gets the drugs he doesn't go into the house where the greenback is where the cops observe the greenback he goes to another location this is a clear indication that he is not working with coming here that carter's not working with coming here here and what the police officers know and so forth so the police officers know that he's been arrested and i guess that's a fact that probably counts in the government's favor here but there's nothing to suggest that they are working together and the real transaction is very very important and they call for because that fact is not in the district we're fine thanks but yes it's a fact of record and it's and all the district court does is he credits people officers observations he does not credit everything he sa carter and it least one other main no reference to enter and car and then simply had a gun and this is a district court's findings as it relates to the probable cause determination so i suggested that's an implicit rejection of that particular component of it arrested so what he's here arrested for well oh interesting another for there's actually a tacit admission in my view by police officers involved in this case that at the time carter they didn't even interestingly there is not a single iota of evidence in this case up to this point in time not until the search happens and actually did give you looking back that suggests that treats any nexus between that green bag and illegal activity none whatsoever and this is the significance of the ryal transaction because when the person who is selling drugs on the street in plain view of a police officer needs to read up he doesn't go over the green bags at that time fact the seizure and in fact the record reveals that that a couple of times some people may try to get a car the police officer had to shoot them or so we have a seizure of a vehicle without probable cause and then the really but they didn't search until they got the war this or that sure i understand i'm not understood what your argument was as the seizure of the court because they didn't search that car until they got the warrant so that to the extent that mr corker has standing to circumstances without any other information as long as there's circumstances to the officer to a reasonable officer indicate that he's a person who's committing a crime and in this case that's what was happening the officers are watching for well over forty five minutes they were seen cunningham openly doing these transactions in front of carter's house again that's significant this is these are row homes he's not next door he's not in a lot he's in front of carter's home he's communicating with him throughout the sales and then of course with the threat that comes in and we really see their enterprise or their their team kicking th they've got to do these two dogs and ultimately the officers at that point don't know for sure what's in the back but the circumstances are certainly indicating to them under a talent of circumstances inside these drugs and that carter is very much a part of this open air drug selling that's going on they see them leaving the house checking to see what the coast is clear carrying the bag together to the car putting it in the truck and at that point they're arrested and with respect to it again at this point it is important the prior history that we touched upon earlier that they had just months earlier arrested mr carter he had drugs on his person and that arrest and he also had a duffel bag with drugs inside your honor just assuming for argument that warrantless but that you find it's not founded which of course we don't concede out there the only things that are taken from him at that point are the key and in that currency at that point your honor the officers hold the car and even though the government's position is they could have searched the car at that point for probable cause the bag is being put in the car all the circumstances leading up to  the dog had a positive hit and so there's more than a bonded probable cause at that point separate even from the arrest which really the only fruits would have been the keys and the currency and  this leaving to put the items in the car and certainly your honor ultimately with respect to the search warrant there is that good faith exception under leon that even if and there's been no argument by counsel that there were at least it wouldn't have been in the same condition when they finally grew up with a lot to snip was certainly on there were people who came to take possession of the car or whatever were there was in the probable cause to believe that there was contraband inside clearly yes and if you want to listen yes you are and i would argue also as well as even if they have reasonable suspicion that it is they can hold it briefly until the do calm and at that point it blooms into probable cause but certainly the government's position is that the probable cause was there even before the dog of iraq that these are this is good police work these officers are taking every step to build their case carefully they don't need to bring in the dock they bring to the dock they don't need to get a search warrant they get a search short and so fall for all those reasons your honor the government out believes this is good police work describe what i'm going to make it even less black and white as the court would like it to be because i've just perused the record and i can't find it i mean i know it was said earlier that the car was i'm registered but it's not a search warrant application that and i don't believe there was