warrant your honour's this case is coming before this court on to it an appeal from a conditional plea that was entered into by mr many and the government and that condition preserve his right to appeal this argument for electronic items that were located and mr mini's residence the items that in fact range in size however what i believe to be important today is the timeline of the facts and the most of the items in the front living room in the main room to watch the beginning of the search and appellants opening agree that was pointed out based on the recording that was presented at the suppression hearing that  ammunition at that time three minutes and twenty two seconds and there was no mention as to get a finding of firearms so before any firearms were found there were two outstanding items that were remaining the forty two inch t v and the laptop with mr minis i guess with permission mr many went ahead and retrieve the laptop for the officers after finding the ammunition the officer certainly had time which will be our contention to request an additional warrant if they had reason to believe that there was a need for it and said i thought search proceeded to search him and his residence by what we will contend to be beyond the scope of the war government and the suppression hearing as well as in their brief argued our plane the plain view doctrine as well as the inevitable rule and what we're arguing is  that unfortunately where the firearms were found it was not in plain view and i believe and the officers testimony at the suppression hearing which was reflected in the transcript as well the officer did say that it was not in plain view i believe that items that were found in the back bedroom were found in a closet under clothing things like that things where a forty two inch t v would not have been reasonably good at it and so it is mr menes contention that once the main search was finished as it relates to the main items that were found and then mr money cooperated in the laptop once those items were found that it would have been more reasonable for the officer to go ahead and get another search warrant as opposed to going beyond the scope of the search warrant and finding items that were not what did they find initially and what was left to be found what was left to be found was a forty two inch t v television as well a a sunny laptop everything else i believe it was found laptop that's correct your honor i would feel bad anywhere when it could potentially but i would still argue that it may not have fit under clothing or it may not have been reasonable to  and at that point i believe your honor as well i'm assuming a dead volunteer that he knew where the laptop was and he did bring them to it if there are are there any further may please the court brian writes for the united states just like to make a couple points of clarification on the timeline starting with judge gagne's question the last item found was the laptop so the law enforcement found the ammunition and every single gun by the time the laptop before the laptop been found so they searched no area where a laptop can be contained including the dresser drawer in the closet the judge found that the search for the electronic was ongoing while they found the ammunition gun mr many is not really even attempted to find that was clear air and it's certainly not based on detective vasquez's testimony which says that the search for the electronics was going on when it by the time it found the ammunition in the gun moreover the mr many recordings essentially corroborates everything that the police officers testified to and just pacific to the timeline then unison was found within five to ten seconds of the knish ation a search based on detec unless the government went ahead and got a second search warrant when the officers enter the home i know there was a fanning where the officers went into different rooms however based on the specificity of the search warrant there were certain items that they should have been looking for that arguable arguably based on your honor's question could have technically fit anywhere but based on the timeline they had already therefore another search warrant would have been needed at that time i just wanted to clarify one item that was discussed by opposing counsel as it relates to just the term finding of the laptop at that point the laptop was not found by officers many voluntarily told officers where the laptop was and so i think that's a point of clarification that maybe important to the argument in this matter no further and i think