by opening argument his eleven minutes with four minutes of all this appeal arises after trial by jury in which mr bradley was found guilty of all three counts possession of cocaine with intent address to law enforcement and the vehicles owned by mr faulkner a registered to specific address provided by that confidential informant in our case  probable cause to support the g p s santa david was a close call you know you mentioned the license plate the license plate was incorrect but it was pretty darn close i think the two letters were wrong but the the four numbers were after the four numbers i think were absolutely correct is that does that make a difference that it was pretty close yes your honor i think it makes a difference that it was pretty close however it's my understanding that the concerned citizen was only able to provide   only provided a generic description of mr bradley being a black male in his mid thirty's short stocky wearing a baseball backwards base and inner guards to be reliable confidential informant number one it's my understanding that that particular confidential informant was involved in a controlled by  or controlled by money that is considered material even though it was not used a trial ok on this one i think you agree that the harrington case controls position that information was material because that is what led to the initiation of this case if not for that control by the probable cause statement would only contain information in regards to to concerned citizens and the officer testifying that he noticed unusual activity in regards to involving the similar about how much the informant tipsters give valuable information and that that feeds into harrington you follow my logic that's why i say it's kind of a bad question but if you follow the question address order to go ahead and test the materiality of the information provided by scout or without the crack cocaine without any sort of recording which is supported by the statement mr bradley made on the field telephone call in regards to the only thing they'd have me for as a sum by was wearing a wire on me or somebody bought  more general statement you know the statement right before that the only thing that's probably going to going to stick is if they claim that somebody so to meet sold to him never lets up that didn't the county jail boone county because of many notorious cases over the years they have a clear warning right that everything's recorded and everything's listened to an elevated to beginning oh yes you know that that morning should have been included on i understand your argument that he didn't say i sold dope last week or whatever but i mean could the district court infer that this was what he was talking about the crime he was charged with should in fact when i m well where these statements made after the execution of the search and i said yes they were out there is theirs because it was made after the execution of a search warrant an arrest that doesn't probative in this particular case based on the fact of the generic statement of selling dope and based on the fact that there is no reference time other than the fact that the admission was tracking and the subject of this appeal which authorized officers to apply a tracking device to a truck that was registered to romulus bradley and later in the execution of a search warrant for that truck as well as a residence in columbia missouri at the time of the the only adult in the home that was searched and was found in close proximity to several firearms his truck outside was also searched and the constable contained cocaine more than eighteen grams of cocaine base a digital scale and other drug related items as you heard mr hayes describe mr bradley as first challenging the probable cause deporting the original g p s tracking warrant that was applied as truck and as our briefs that's out this was actually a fairly detailed probable cause statement that was provided in the state court for this warrant it's twenty two paragraphs long it summarizes information from two cooperating citizens both of whom had given information to law enforcement in the past and had never been unreliable they general information alleging that bradley was a drug dealer there was also a crime stopper tip from a few months prior alleging that bradley was a drug dealer identifying his street name and also identifying his truck all those the court has already noted he was off by a letter on the license plate there was surveillance and car stops linking bradley to the specific vehicle that the trucking world was applied to and there was also information from a reliable confidential informant who actually participated in a controlled by that was described in the warrant also and there was no conspiracy allegation or anything else that would have made that prior conduct necessary to the defendant's defense and i think those kind of relates to the defendant's argument with harrington you know harrington sets forth circumstances where the government's privilege should yield to the defendant's interests and it makes sense you know there's obviously a strong interest in the government's side to be able to protect the confidentiality of informants and encourage citizens to come forward with information it makes sense for that to yield in a coup in the context of an actual criminal case where the individual's liberty interests are at stake in fiction but the standard for probable cause for obtaining a search warrant was so much lower obviously because the defendant's interests are really more of a privacy interests and not the actual deprivation of liberty and i think the government's interest and for the reasons that within hearing to needs to be primary in that circumstance so you just be very careful choosing what to do charge that's it's true that the government makes a decision about what to charge but i guess there are a number of factors that go into that that aren't i guess intended to undermine the defendant's liberty or prepared my brief but i'm not tracking of it but as far as you know it doesn't not that i know of thank you and there are obviously a number of considerations that the government makes when charging a defendant i guess the bottom line in this case is that the information that resulted in these federal charges came exclusively from a search warrant that took place at his house which is actually separate from the g p s tracking warrants challenged in this case  the information that the officers used to develop probable cause to apply that weren't wasn't really part of our our charges there is some relevance in the intent to distribute and that obviously kind of reflects back in the defendant's jail call argument about the  calls but primarily this was just a search warrant case where the government charged the guns in the drugs that were located after the issuance of the search warrant i guess turning to the drill holes argument the defendant objected to shortly after the government's opening statement where i made reference to the fact that they would be included in as he stated he had made some general statements that the only thing he would be good for is a drug charge  context of the jail calls was that the defendant had initially been arrested and charged in state court and he was held in boone county jail until he until he saw federal charges in the detective lunsford had testified that he was chart that brought mr bradley was charged or for which purpose the purpose of it again it was sort of an extra intertwined with the rest of the calls where the defendant's reaction to the search warrant there was an extensive discussion on these calls about his truck obviously his ownership or possess know what's the purpose well in addition to the fact that they were in a strictly intertwined with the other information it was relevant to the defendant's motive and intent and intent to distribute the drugs that were found in the truck  as i stated you know there was an emotion in women a so this was kind of a trial objection and i do think that they were admissible for those reasons as mr hayes summarized the court in a discussion or decision whether to admit them case and i know they defend it also makes a four oath brief but they were more prejudicial than probative and as i stated in my reef they were prejudicial but not unfairly so they were obviously quite strong evidence that the defendant was aware of the drugs in the truck that he did had intended to distribute them they were is some of the calls also reflected there of some cryptic conversation about a possible what the government ha true that we never really know how long in time the distances between the charge crime and the control by the you say he was discussing that's true your honor and something i kind of reflected on when i went back at the time the parties sort of were all aware from the discovery in preparation for a trial that they were taken these were jail calls from the immediate aftermath of the search where i think they were within twenty four hours of his arrest the context does reflect that to an extent if you listen to the calls you know he's clearly talking about his truck and there's information kind of reflecting it's kind of confirming the recency of the search warrants but it was not part of our discussion with judge to the exact timeline do you choire about time i calls the defendant also made an argument relating to the sufficiency of evidence i wanted to just summarize some of the evidence that supported our case on this front with respect to the guns as i stated earlier mr bradley was found he was the only adult in the home at the time there were two infant children as well i think just to his three of the guns that were found were in the living room where he was located up all of them within very close distance to him there were two one on and one underneath the that she did testify that she purchased three guns she wasn't definitive in identifying the three guns that she purchased but she indicated that she purchased three guns that were consistent with three of the guns that were located in the house however she also testified that when she left the house early that morning to go to work mr bradley had come over to take care of the children and that when she left the house the guns were in a box upstairs and not in the locations that they were found during the search warrant there was also a fourth gun that she did not recognize and indicated that she did not purchase so i think it was a fair inference from all of that evidence that they were mr bradley's guns as we pan stated there were jail call statements and you know saying all four or more is right exercising dominion and control over them and i think the evidence supported that also there was strong evidence with respect to the drugs which were found in the truck evidence that mr bradley own the truck drove the truck to the house that morning with a different person yet again well there was a different person that was a co owner of a yes that's correct i think the evidence was that he drove to the home that morning alone though it was there was no additional individual in the truck or related to the truck on that day there was also some general testimony from a detective from being a county about the general relationship between drugs firearms and there was also a twelve thousand dollars cash found inside the living room and a pair of  in the pocket and so there was general testimony linking that these items would have had a common owner which is a location in columbia missouri that's correct and you know the address i want to say forty two eighty three east curry circle but enough  going and so that you know that the general testimony supported a common common theme of mr bradley being a drug dealer who came to the house to move the guns around that morning i think it was a fair inference the jury was entitled to accept and obviously