your alleged illegal search of the vehicle produce marijuana the record shows a charge this is just yes but are you that is not the case because it is being tainted with illegal search of the vehicle and the subsequent search of the hotel room under the  brief or your issue you tell us why it's important that we determine where the initial search of a vehicle that turns of evidence of a crime was  was illegal if the search is not a legal that it's actually legal in this court's eyes was the trial court then there is nothing in the push tree issue and there's no exclusionary evidence on the subsequent wish however if it is illegal for maintaining that opens threshold the search of the truck and that charge no longer exists correct so in order for us to go any further we have to know why we should go further and you are explaining why we should go for that somehow these are inextricably related because of the possibility of a cruel poison three argument but that's not how the agree with me that the initial search was illegal when everything good there in the first place so i'm saying if the court agrees with my contention that this was an illegal search then we come you know the subsequent search becomes illegal as well but if we don't get to the point where we agree that the initial search was illegal then it's a moot point because the subsequent search is legal as well and the stated this that and their our response to my view they said well if that happens and then we deal with this i did not feel the need to address it as the state address was actual who are your comedy who are requiring you to while he keeps and they're simply has not been any demonstrated after motion hearing or in the stipulated facts basically the only evidence that was introduced on this with the intent of returning i never had any intention anyone else using the car and that was not contradicted at any point by the state that register the more trigger issue apparent who are the control of your shoes excuse me to control in case law and that is matlock and rodriguez investigating officer shoes believe that there was grounds for the consumer by questions more closely to the facts five years there that this case and that is that they got a report of somebody in a truck with a gun or no relationship to the discovery of marijuana in the in the truck the snow when they got the keys was a probable cause to search the motel not finding really warm in the truck they didn't do that well they didn't have to they already have p c to search the motel room based on the smell they're worried about possible weapons in the truck and that became priority  really better because of whether they were right or wrong which hotel room is coming from they thought it was coming from the hotel room they eventually search quite frankly big they ask permission to search for permission was gra not have appeared exactly it's pretty clear from the record that they're there doesn't meet the definition of common or actual worry and there's no mutual we shall get use of the truck there was never anyone he said yeah i drive it yeah i got probably my own and yeah i r hotel room he gave them apparent authority and rodriguez says we're not supposed to do that what a reasonable person under the circumstances believe that these people have been working to do that i said but they didn't and further investigation also point out that in some of the state's arguments that are made and so the arguments i'm hearing the court better about are theoretical they what was ruled on by the trial court was that the defendant excuse me that the police have our third once they smell the marijuana but he specifically said however based upon the case officer by the state i'm going to go ahead and rule against you and rule in favor of the state and grant deny your motion to suppress and on that even though the police that smelled marijuana coming from the little motel room before the search truck that's basically this is argument that argument holds water then that's a different situation isn't it i would argue that there after had more than enough information even without the marijuana discovered in the car to tina's search warrants based on the odor he smelled as far as she's been aware she approached the hotel room and to find a cousin admission  out they have waived that argument i mean the whole issue here is the initial search of people and if it's not then everything that follows is accordingly but if it is are you out of the trial court's decision there's no there's no basis for arguing that there's a