accordingly this court has always had one very reasonable request of the governments that are coming in with this kind of caves that reasonable request has been that you need to connect the illegal activity to stuff that goes off at the airport with the illegal drug act candidly the court and the government was a little bit slow in understanding that request from the ninth circuit court bench really however the government got the position and  the two thousand and two thousand and one case of twenty two thousand dollars in currency and then again in the two thousand and one two thousand and two case of forty two thousand five hundred dollars there is certainly an indication that the light had come on and the government was doing the kinds of things the court wanted to do with dog alerts the state is here because it leaves it is done exactly that in the district court in the trial court and has been precluded from being able to handle that from what was really the ultimate ti in the in arizona the connection has to be in any manner or part to any kind of illegal narcotic activity section twenty three or one says that any activity that has anything to do with illegal drugs and it's not any more specific than that so your tie is the dog no your honor the time is that's what makes the jump that the court has always requested from the illegal activity  district court says look we didn't look at what was going on at the airport there was certainly something illegal going on and the district court concedes that in its opinion right but it says you need to make a jump to connect that to illegal drugs and how to do that we do it the way the ninth circuit court has always told us to do it and that is by bringing in what the court calls a sophisticated dog alert but i don't think you did that you had a sophisticated dog alert means one that this far as i can read the cases more specific than just a reaction to the drug content and that's exactly what this court said in the thirty thousand dollar case back in one nine hundred eighty nine and again in one thousand nine hundred two when the court when the state was coming in the governor was coming in  own by our own affidavit submitted in to the opposition of the motion for summary judgment our dog alerts to remember we have an expert who goes in via affidavit and says look i have looked at these records i've looked at the dog records and the records indicate that this dog does not alert to currency in general circulation which has been this court's concern back in one nine hundred eighty nine and our expert says i've looked at the records and the records say i not alerting to that the expert also says i'm a trainer and i train this dog and i know that this particular alert by this particular dog means that this money has been in direct contact or he says mr green says based on my background training experience the alert to the currency by this dog in the case that the currency had been exposed to a sufficient quantity of illegal drugs were sufficient period of time to allow the holder of those drugs to be absorbed into the currency that's the very point that was made in the sophisticated god cases you know what you want is an alert to recent drug lords not that that's contained i alerts if if if the court recalls its case in the twenty two thousand dollars case in the forty two thousand dollars case a sophisticated dog alerted park to things very reasonable things we want to know that a dog is not hitting on currency in general circulation not through the byproduct of drugs recently in contact with the money i hope that's not what the affidavit is say well if it is then the problem is it doesn't square up i'm not criticizing anybody but it doesn't seem to square with the twenty two thousand case here the government presented evidence that the dog would not alert to cocaine residue found on currency in general circulation rather the dog was trained and would only alert to the odor of words there's an alert and side of alert as one alert all cocaine this money has been your cocaine long enough to pick up the generals and the full name but then there's another sophisticated one that identifies a chemical that evaporates off of money and so you can draw the inference contact rather than contact last year and i don't read your affidavit is going as far as twenty thousand so your i believe the affidavit does both of those it says i've looked at these dogs records this dog does not aler this it's been trained it's a sophisticated trained alert it doesn't alert to money that you pull out of your pocket it doesn't alert to that it alerts only to money that has been in direct or recent contact with it doesn't say recently did it that it says we're training we're reacting to the money on drugs on that may at some time within the last fifteen years come into contact with an illegal drug but what the court is swift the affidavit is saying is that that's not that dog is not going to hit on that doesn't of state ask that the port not place too much emphasis on the recent ness of the contact if the court is satisfied that the currency is is the generally circulating currency is not being alerted to that means residue found on currency in general sutter alerts to a byproduct of cocaine which does not linger on currency and the answer to that he asked the question when i don't know planned but soon enough so that your money won't be alerted by the your the dog alerted to money that had been in direct contact with drugs differently than your money let's assume for the moment that the that the dog does not hit on currency in general circulation that means that whatever contact your money has had it has not been the kind of contact that mr sue morays money is mr sooner is money has had some contact that is different from your money the state is being asked to make a connection to survive a motion for summ that indicates that there's not a contact with money in general circulation thank you thank you