court the issue in the motion to suppress as is the issue here was whether or control by occurring in a car across town from the defendant's home constitute probable cause to search  this case in some respects is sort of be it's sort of a duel between people versus money and which is a first district case you know people current case law is to kind of look at how that case bought the bell so there's two cases as i said that that mainly discussed this issue and the first case was line winds was a fourth district case that relied heavily on a first district case called people versus back and i mentioned where that case came from income because it comes and becomes important later on  in lyons they were basically saying that the next this that is to be drawn from the control body occurring on the street in the home c eight police officers knowledge that instruments of crime in this particular case instruments of drug sales are commonly found in a drug sellers home and lines and then there was one and then there was a first district case called people versus rojas which under somewhat different factual circumstances take the same inference that he back to or relied on in drawing the nexus between the two places and i think that's important because it shows that the lion's case which is principally the case especially as it pertains to this particular case is that there is a somewhat bright line rule that's basically saying that we're the most ar criminal activity that's occurring outside the home is not going to be a problem caused to search the home unless there's some sort of nexus that can be drawn from the criminal activity outside to to the home itself and we are this case falls in that one of cases it's it's back to somewhere to some but not others and that's describing in greater detail in the breeze but what i what i wanted to point out  in in this world argument is the concept the intervening location and the interim location in this case is a call so the defendant goes out from the house gets into the car goes to the drugs so there's actually a place that he goes between the house and between the drugs and it's our position that the intervening location that because the officers maintained constant surveillance on the defendant they they called up the defendant had a confidential source call and come meet me across town for the drug deal so they got ice on the house he comes out of the exit exit the house and go to a place to commit a crime is you know itself going to be the nexus by our position is as it relates to this particular case anyway is that if there is an intervening stop basically and if you look at the case law that discusses these types of situations the court makes that didn't work distinction they'll say well you know he didn't stop off to go here stop off to go there we saw him you know go from one location to another uninterrupted there was no opportunity for him say for instance to pick up drugs or something else in another reasonable well it's it's not necessarily a matter of reasonableness that's exactly what the probable cause of why i think that probable cause requires some evidence  basically the i mean probable cause to go into a criminal's house basically when he commits a crime so in other words there are concerns from a policy standpoint of being able to get a search warrant were a criminal's house just because he committed a crime just because it's reasonable to think that the instruments of his crime would be in his house because maybe that's where he came from well particular type of circumstance if that was sort of the the touchstone then his reasonableness would only be limited by his imagination but what if what if you had s want the police to be able to just willy nilly get into people's home by simply saying that he thinks that the instruments of crime that this person was using somewhere outside the home could be located in the home and be particularized to the place that's going to be served and that's really what at bottom this case is all about and so you're saying if  controlled by in the house and they will come out you know the agents will have the house under surveillance while the conference force goes in finds the drugs gives the agent the money or the drugs and they're able to get it warrant for the person in for the house in that instance but in that particular instance the the house is is in many ways an instrument of the illegal activity itself i but in this case it's merely a place that is that is legal locus of this and that's different from from a case like this and that is perhaps why the le quote it was unaware of any problems decision where a drug transaction on the street provides probably caused the search of the drug sellers rather that there is something that's particularly troubling from a fourth amendment perspective of being able to search a house when there's no connection to criminal activities that house other than the criminal leaving it well but this guy's  that's really the issue here is that there wasn't anything other than the fact that the defendant was leaving from that house that would give anyone reason to believe that there would be anything illegal i well i mean as far as who it actually belonged to who the title was and i don't think there was any evidence that he was on the title we wouldn't we would concede for purposes of this issue that the  house was functionally hits because there's all kinds of things that were connecting him to the actual house there was a domestic violence incident that occurred there two years prior to the car that he was driving to the drug deal w registered to that house but that's that's not what i think is a determinant issue whether it's his house or not because the case law is saying back there isn't any case moroc that a publicist decision or a drug transaction on the street provides for probable cause for search of the drug sellers residence so that the rules are deep contemplating that the residen just i can see that and i think that part of it is that there's sort of the spectrum from inference to pure conjecture and i think that you get closer to sort of a reasonable inference wish you know this is something that the case law says that the issuing judge can can make something that's pure conjecture which is something that the case law also condemned as so it  you know it's one thing to to think that there is drug activity that's going on at a house for instance because they have higher utility bills  for you know they might have grow lights or something in there or are there some sort of smell that's emanating from their peers an increase in unusual activity of people coming and going things that are out of  married those are the types of things that would be a reasonable inference that that the house was connected to to illegal activity whereas on the spectrum of reasonable inference to conjecture it's conjecture to think that just because this drug dealer lives in this house that he's going to keep the instruments of his trade in the house and in this particular case he was living at his house with two young children and obviously that's not you know the best parental role model but he could he could at least mitigate some of that by keeping these dangerous things away from the children and putting them in the car if every deal well i think that kind of along those lines if you think of along these lines whether he's working out of his home if you think of sort of like a plumber who keeps his van maybe in his driveway every night that's got all his tools he gets a call now of the night that train then he gets into his van he goes to the location he uses his tools to fix the problem he gets in his van and he got strong doesn't necessarily take any of those tools inside with him he's not fixing the problem out on you know fixing the clock from this house he's going into his vehicle in this intervening place and then going to his work places and you were talking about there with stops along the way you know if he if you that he actual location the actual act of getting in the car is a stop in and of itself and its own right if he had just walked down to to the corner and effectuated a drug deal under surveillance of the house and then walked back it would be reasonable under those circumstances for her be an officer to think that he drugs must have originated at least originally from the house because there was no other place that he could have come from and whereas  i actually had given that some thought that was one of the cases that i'd cite in my motion to cite supplemental from early on because i just found out yesterday that sprint were granted he only on that i mean i don't think that that would be a bad idea  my client is serving a long sentence and i think fact in the event that this court affirmed the trucker in that case was still pending then we would have to file inferences as we've discussed that can establish a nexus between the criminal offense and the place to be searched and that any gap of information can be filled by the f b i officers experience that drug dealers ordinarily keep profits records and their supply in their homes in marginal cases should also be resolved in favor of upholding the search warrant on just the couple of cases that counsel addresses people versus  no so in that case they were there the second search warrant was executed after the first first search warrant did not uncover any contraband the court in that case took issue with that fact that there were two warrants on the same day by the same judge one of which was only given after nothing was found and in that case there was no control why there was no direct observational evidence as there was in this case of defendant leaving any residence and going to control by as there was here in the court found that that was you know there wasn't enough for the war t and the people versus rojas case again that's also there was no direct observational evidence that is involved interception of a conversation there was no there was no determination of w leaving his house getting in his car and driving directly to the bottom so it's the people's position that the there were there was probable cause for the search i mean obviously different if he goes three or four different places then you know that sort of blurs the lines a little bit as to where you know he would have kept he may have kept you know drugs or you know evidence of his criminal activity but again in this case that he's seen driving directly to the by you know of this set up by both the competent resource and him over the phone  just i mean there was nothing there was nothing that directly says this is in the house however based on you know the f b i officers knowledge it can be based on that that you know drug dealers ordinarily keep these kinds of things in their would it's reasonable to think that a drug dealer would keep profits supply records anything in their homes if that i mean that's where site that's the same back channel scenario we've seen leaving the house to make a controlled by that and set up between the two lions did involve a third party which is we don't have a third party here it's directly from confidential source  just briefly i think the the e i mean case acknowledges twice as the statement is their brief that there are unique facts but if you look at them if you kind of set aside  case and i do want to kind of circle back to the backtrace as well because lines is based on most entirely on back because back is the one that says that you can draw that  nexus through the through the detective who seeks a search warrants experience that instruments of drug sales are found in the home what's interesting is that if you actually look at and thirteen so clearly the first district's view of this issue has developed over time and i don't think that their leader decisions are in concert with the earlier decision of back