enforcement law enforcement responded and an employee and a customer of the verizon store described number one what had happened within the confines of the store they described the perpetrator of the armed robbery as a skinny young african american person and they also told law enforcement that at or about the time of the robbery they had observed a t bands automobile in a parking lot at the front of the horizon store they also told the officer that that t m mercedes then at some point went to the back of the store the robber went exit in the store when felt to back to where the store turns to the left and has no contact they see no interaction to paraphrase their position was they thought that people in the mercedes when parked in front of the store were watching the interior of the store and then they found it curious that that car ended up at the back of the score store in proximity with the robber they were suspicious enough that they noted the license number license plate number of the vehicle some tape on a bumper of the vehicle and obviously the make and color of the car law enforcement having received that information from the two individuals put out a radio broadcast and within moments another law enforcement officer sees the vehicle on the highway gets behind it notifies his cohorts that he is tailing the car a stop of the car is made by law enforcement multiple squads are involved the occupants of the vehicle mr howard being one of them and a female being the other are ordered out of the car ordered to get down and spread eagle on the ground and at that point are being c ed or watched over by law enforcement with their weapons drawn at some point a superior officer not on the scene orders the officers who have these people in their custody to take them from the scene where the stop curd to a lock to the local police department so they are removed from the situs of the sto the officers do not at any point questioned them in terms of what were you doing by the store there are no in dish it consistent with what is commonly referred to as a terry stop days explain why you're in the area what you're doing what's going on none of that conversation takes place they are handcuffed they are put in separate squads in they are taken to a local  instance says that there was probable cause for the arrest out on the highway despite the fact that law enforcement searched the vehicle found absolutely nothing timing it to the horizon store that is no phones none and none of the things that people describe but judge kluivert says there was probable cause because the customer and the employee saw the car thought it was suspicious and it was at least in the back of the store where the robber had exited even though there's no evidence of any connection and then judge convert says the fact that it sped away at a high rate of speed was indicative of something that he decided was probable cause in his order the judge then spends a fair amount of time talking about a statement obtained from my client the following day and makes a finding that that statement is s attenuated then any failing or problem with the original arrest doesn't matter judge cliff virt also finds that he is not going to consider inevitability because he's already decided there's probable cause when were they given in the morning i'm sorry miranda warning they were not given any miranda warning so after they were at the police department relative to the statement that you do see what that there are two statements there are statements obtained by law enforcement and the date of the arrest within hours of the arrest the statement judge preferred is talking about is taken the following day or made following day as a consequence of a call from my client and advisement by my client as law enforcement that he wanted to talk to the detective he had seen the day before soul it's a situation we're in from the appellant's point of view the senate it's this court review it's probable cause determination it's our position that at that point the persons are pulled over taken forcibly or forced out of the occult handcuff put in squads there is no probable cause that they participated in the the robbery of the verisign store the government has cited a host of cases where people are removed from cars but as set forth in our reply brief in each and every instance there is some fact that connects the people in the car with the illegal activity in this case there was none the government has also talked about  inevitability hears me and this is an interesting case because while judge clerk said there was probable cause for the arrest of the magistrate judge and i understand not here to review we are not reviewing the magistrate judges recommendation but the magistrate judge found that there was not probable cause and proceeded to determine that there was that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably we take the position that the government's argument about inevitability is not a political doesn't it's it's you can't do that particularly and i use the example of a cell phone taken from my client if there hadn't been the illegal on last post taking of him out on the highway the phone would not have been available to law enforcement and maybe down the road they would have found out he's involved in other offenses but the phone wouldn't have been there you can't guarantee that the content or what's on the phone will remain the same some time later it's only by virtue of the fact that they were able to maintain human custody but they were able at a later point and we could have an argument about whether they exceeded the limits of the consent given by my client or not but the point the fact is they obtained a great deal of information off my client's phone which they would not have had but for the illegal the witnesses here saw mr howard acting as a lookout they found that so remarkable they took down his license plate the make of his car the color of his car tape on the bumper of his car a number of occupants in his car after the robbery they called the police they described those to the police and they said before the robbery we saw him staring for an extended period at the store right before the gunman burst then he pulled around behind the store and after the robbery called he thought those people might be a d could not believe you said they were involved i don't remember precisely the word with your reason i say that because in hindsight least one could say that they would do all of that and zoomed off to pretend at least he got in that car with phones it's very possible although i believe the witnesses said that they did not believe that they saw the gunman get into this car well that's it and so it appeared to the witnesses that the appellant here acted in concert with the government that was certainly a finding by the district court i do think per your honor your honour's observation it is not inconsistent with the witnesses statements to police that when the appellant was pulled over a few minutes only a few minutes after this call that the gun was not in the car that the gun was not in the car and the phones were on the car that's not inconsistent fact with the conclusion suppressed here because there are many overlapping layers of inevitable discovery first mr howard's coa lookout and his being was also arrested can fast and identify him and because her fourth man rights are personal rights he may not there wasn't a significant intervening event between the arrest and his statement which is the say he volunteered to make that statement fact he insisted on it waited for hours for detective to show up and then made inculpatory statements if that's not an intervening event for the for purposes of brown factors i don't know what would be and certainly the police conduct here was not playground i suppose reasonable minds could disagree as to whether there was probable cause here or really reasonable suspicion but it was if anything close not  conversation apparently he was eluding her that maybe it's time they didn't cover for the other i guess i think that as the court found mr howard really told ms b and she didn't have to repeatedly rejected but for fruit of the poisonous tree analysis and as i said he cannot simply cannot assert her rights even if this arrest were improper which the government starts it was not so he can't suppress her statement about suspected involvement in a string of cell phones or robberies after determining that mr howard was related to this up on star robbery they would most certainly have gone back and inevitably discovered the evidence they did discover when they searched it in this case but the  reach these inevitable discovery issues because there was probable cause to believe howard was a lookout in this case the only that's the that's the inevitable issue that we're doing with