the main issue in this case is whether or not there was probable cause to arrest mr christie all before the illegal search and seizure the district court ruled that there was probable cause and it was based on the controlled the that was the reason for issuing the search warrant however if you look at the facts and the controlled by first of all this is a confidential informant that comes to a known drug user comes and says tied up but controlled by they go out make the controlled by the confidential informant is given money tracked you know the normal procedures watch just he drives up to the house however once he goes into the property they are no longer able to see what's going on he doesn't have any wires on him to have any kind of show there's any communication between him and the person that selling the drugs he comes out five minutes later they go and they check warrant listing another address not the address of the hand that was searched and that was the address that was pulled up on an arrest record so there was no verification that mr christie you know indeed was even living or was at that davit he did say that yes he had used that person two other times however this officer had only been in the narcotics task force for like two years at the time he testified which was a year after th and they find drug paraphernalia scales that sort of thing with residue on it ok right they found a drug scale however with residue on with they assumed residue ok however that was found after the search of mr christie up to the search of his person after the search of his person and at the time that they win and so you're saying that just because they found the scale  scale of there's no evidence of scale was found prior to the search because it was documented in the record at the time they commenced the search and at the time they recorded the item i think you're misunderstanding just hearkens question i'm interested in so i think the question is and maybe you can correct me if i'm wrong the question is wouldn't have they have discovered it inevitably anyway because they would have even though the time timing was different if  well if they had found the scale and arrested him then they would have been entitled to search correct ok however he's detained there so he's not the inevitable discovery issue first of all i'm objecting that it was not raised in the lower court and that wasn't even brought up as far as the search incident to a lawful arrest was brought up because the judge said they had probable cause to start with so in the end of a double discovery rule i don't believe it falls under that it would fall under if they had probable cause to arrest him however i don't think just finding the scale would have given probable cause to the evidence are not very big but if you look at the picture in the evidence extensive record this is a large house this was a one bedroom house many rooms in this house so who lived there we don't know who lived there we don't know who was in that room who had possession of the items in that room where the scale was found and there was never any evidence to connect the scale to mr stelios so if in fact the scale didn't give rise to arrest somebody arrest which one of the three or if any of them mr can still it was found in the car park area where the cocking gun in his hand it was the time of day when he possibly could be working there we don't know even live there there's no evidence to he ever lived there in the record so he could have been working there if he was just a laborer working there then who's to say that scale belonged to him that was found in one of the rooms so i don't think there's enough evidence to tie the know for probable cause to say he's the one that possessed the scale so therefore we can arrest him and now we have the authorization to search him and can find the drugs i don't i think there's enough of a connection there there's no other evidence to show me this mr casino was every even in that house that day there's nothing there so they could have stayed around and watched the house to see who was coming and going it was no surveillance there was nothing to follow up they didn't warrant we have a reliable informant who was used by this officer on two prior occasions he'd been used by other officers in his department and numerous other occasions he had never provided false or erroneous information cia information along with the controlled by that was done on the twenty sixth of august which corroborated exactly what the c i had said he said i go to this house i buy directly from mr castello he described the residen and which came first isn't quite clear but i don't really think it matters in the end what matters is that they found the scale they found in the bedroom of this house which was uninhabited still under construction in the room where the scale was found  the sleeping bag on the floor with them belongs to there's no furniture otherwise in the house why does that help you i mean it seems to me that kind of hurts you because you're three people found at the scene we don't know who's been there is no testimony that  well i think again the cooperation from these confidential informant that he had done there on numerous occasions to buy drugs from castello and when they go to that residence to execute the search warrant there's mr castello again so i think to meet the probable cause standard thanks for your argument with to disagree with what the government has to say about the reliability of this informant because he didn't say that he purchased drugs there before he said he knew that he was selling drugs from that house i believe and and that still doesn't bring give them the reliability that this was mr christie you know because again there was no evidence to show that he was there and why would he be living here anyway he had a wife and three children in a residence that he was living  fact for the bond that was put up for his bail he was released on bail after his arrest was that a property it doesn't give the address of the bell but you wouldn't be putting up just it didn't say it was was the residence where he was living so there's no evidence just show that he i was actually living in that house residing in that house or he was the person that actually sold the drugs to the the the c i on the other undercover buy there's just no evidence additionally the officer you're talking to that actually made out the affidavit for the search warrant he stated at that time during his testimony that he did not believe there was probable cause that he could have arrested him prior to finding the items on his person so therefore he didn't believe there was probable cause at the time otherwise he should have gotten an arrest warrant you just can't go in and arrest somebody if in and gone out and arrest mr could steal right then and there without going through the search i don't believe there was a nothing done even for the search warrant in order to warrant that they and the officers overstep their bounds even the court was concerned that they all thought they had a will put it over to the end of the calendar if it doesn't drop by the end of the calendar will submit it ok i think you can go home and say you gave the most brilliant argument i've ever heard that's what i plan on doing thank you all right