government agents detained and interrogated the juvenile in violation of eighteen u s c fifty thirty three the seven hours that he was held in cell to twenty am is virtually unprecedented in terms of like the delay prior to taking of the confession or put the other way whether the confession was at least in part as a result of the violations and united states versus r r n a this court looked at a four hour delay and said that after four hours it is fair to presume that isolation from family and friends and an attorney would have the bare minimum be a cause of the of the confession if those facts are true under four hours and it is least a cause and certainly under seven hours has to do with the mere presence taken out of school as a whole all around christian even if these statements did come into evidence was merely present during the commission of his father's crime there's only a couple ways that a passenger in a vehicle can occur from a liability for riding along a port of entry one of them through possession actual dominion and control of the contraband in this case there's no evidence to show possession dominion or control and united states versus ramirez this court looked at a very similar fact pattern and held that a passenger does not have possession dominion or control when there's no fingerprints on the contraband when they have no particular control of the vehicle when they're not a driver when they're not the registered owner of the car all of those facts fall in line here christian or if these had just turned seventeen his father was the registered owner of the car his adult cousin who was in the car also suppressed or the government would be left with is to have to excise the statements from their case and absence of christian knows incriminating statements the government would rather incriminate well there is the government presented them that way and the district court could then proceed with whether the case should be dismissed i don't your honor i believe that in a situation like this it could be remanded with instruction we have that discussion mr scott is correct in the it's urgent that there are certain public policy issues relating to prosecution of juveniles within the federal system and there are have also been cases that i've seen over the years from this circuit where there are directions to dismiss based on insufficiency of the evidence or direct judgment of reversal the evidence and i don't know that there is a difference between juvenile cases and adult cases in that regard well there may be some public policy issues yes however in terms of actual evaluation of the evidence and  of this court evaluating the remainder of the missile evidence i think not and you want to get out of the merits of you want to discuss first the issue of whether you can see there was a violation yes if the question is whether that was a cause of the statement that means it would be the government's position that it was not hand i would list various factors to the court and the record is very clear in this case i just what happened some of the things that the court me wish to take into consideration are points of already being brought up first of all my correct and it's the government's burden to show that it is not because that is correct  burden of showing that the fact that he agreed to make the statement was not the tension of seven hours was not a cause of the i think evaluating the actual evidence in this case your honor the rulings that were this case has a situation where unlike the other cases where the court was concerned about each of the most isolation from the family inability to contact a family member all of those other aspects of fifty thirty three do not you not the best it only hurts you it hurts your because it provides no excuse for the government not to have contact with the father and done what it was supposed to do it didn't have to go fetch him it didn't have to spend office time trying to find them it didn't have a problem of trying to get him to come and whatever right all those things fall by the wayside the officers were often operating under the assumption that they needed to determine what their case schooling to a while ago was how do you carry a burden of showing that the violation is not a cause of the fact that he decided to tuck because of what of how this table is actually made your honour's by the time the agents got to him there is no evidence in the record other than the statements of the juvenile himself that were made during his during the suppression hearing prior to the trial that he was ill that he didn't understand what was going on he was cognizant he talked casually with the agency seems sad which in tired because he must've been after seven hours but there's no evidence that not a cause it would seem that the likely thing would be that the detention of that length would have some some effect on your agreeing to tuck if you're going to be held indefinitely in jail that you would what i think i think it's a difficult burden to carry for the government but i still not sure how you do it once you concede the violation and then i have a burden to show saw them loaded in the car even indicated that he knew that they were a type of crystal indicated to the agents that he was very sorry and would never do this again in terms of his access to the drugs in the car he had the same equal access that anyone and he knew where they were loaded and they were actually hidden in a place in the car where any member of the any passenger or the driver would have the same access form out of difficulty because they were actually hidden in a place in the car  not doing anything but the guy in seat three b is bringing in this my committee some crime if i don't support him well perhaps if you have the knowledge that christian noted that on prior occasions criminal acts that's true so why does that so significant that he finds himself in jail because he didn't disclaim his father or disavow a in this case was just window dressing to show the happy family going back and forth across the border that's clear in his comments when he came to be a juvenile delinquent and i think based upon the subsequent sentence that the juvenile receive which was i think commensurate with what the district court you lose role in this case to me that that was at least one way of looking at what christian was doing in this case not that he was just going out and he knew what was happening but that he knew that they were bringing back into the united states he was there and as the son to show what if you  a passenger possessing contraband in ramirez the court held that that is not possession and in fact in the ramirez case the high command was smuggled in a spare tire which presumably everyone in the car i could have equal access to so i suggest that there's not a very clearly i imagine that a person could probably get into it without taking off actually cars moving without actually getting out from or using a blowtorch i don't know whether a person could do it when the door's closed or whether the door would have to be stopped and open in stationary in order to remove one of the paneling i don't know the answer that question the record doesn't reflect it but but even there was not lying on the back seat if it was not lying on the back seat certainly christian himself