imitate representing cesar lopez and i'd like to try to reserve two minutes of my time for a bottle your honor sir i'd like to first address the district court's failure to provide a full and fair evidentiary hearing to allow my client to cross examine the officers on their declarations simply put your honors when the government carries their burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement exists rely on officers declarations prepared for the expressed purpose of litigation we shouldn't be protecting those officers from being cross examined by defense counsel based on those representations they should be subject to cross examine cross examination so hold on a second so the court applied a local rule at this point are you  ially arguing that that local rule is unconstitutional your honor we're arguing that that we complied with the local rule and that that local rule of the very language of the local rule sorry doesn't preclude cross examination of an officer's declarations when they're provided in support of the defendants but i mean the government's burden of proving that an exception to the workwomen exists in other words we're not necessarily thing the local rules unconstitutional but there's nothing in the local rule that precludes us from cross examining the government's declaration the government's witnesses in fact we should be allowed to the local will explicitly says that we are allowed to provide that we should support our motion to suppress with a declaration on behalf of the defendant which we provided there is both a declaration by the defendant and one by the attorney on behalf of the defend it specifically citing the local rule and explaining that the facts attached in the police reports which again were all that were known at that time to to the defendant provide the factual basis upon which we found there was no facts that gave rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause nothing in those police reports indicated whether there was reason what facts gave rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause it wasn't until the government provided the declarations of the of the officers that we got a better indication of what declarations of the officers so we should have been allowed the opportunity to cross examine them on those facts that they say gave rise to reasonable suspicion and probable cause but the only challenge that your client was making at the time of filing the motion to suppress was to the consent issue that's based on the motion to suppress we were challenging whether or not they had any reasonable suspicion to stop any reasonable suspicion a search and any reasonable suspicion to search the car search for clients or support and stop the individuals to begin with but your client's declaration only challenge to consent but our client's declaration that again the declaration has to be provided based on facts known to the defendant at the time again we didn't know what the basis of the reasonable suspicion was that the officers had how could we then provide facts to contest that without knowing what they were to begin with and again your honor to the extent that and yet again the declarations provided a much bigger picture about what the basis was for the reason for the stop there was again no mention of the fact that this was a high crime area which they repeatedly mention in their declaration conditionally reserve the right to appeal an adverse decision on a specified pretrial motion we didn't have an adverse decision on a specified this particular kind of adverse decision i specified pretrial motion of the time because the only adverse decision at the time was the district court's refusal to even hear the motion which we did conditionally agree to plea to appeal and so i mean there would be no reason for us to conditionally agree to appeal the district court's refusal to hear the motion to suppress if we never intended to appeal the merits of that that motion will not necessarily i mean this is a negotiation with the government the government can say look if you if you win this before the answer going back into the previous round you'll get your suppression hearing maybe just walter will suppress the evidence he so what so you got which so the relief you were seeking that you reserved was to have the opportunity to have the hearing correct it was the opportunity have the motion to suppress heard right and you would have an adverse decision on that motion to suppress how could we pretty you know there was no adverse decision to actually reserve the right to conditionally kill based on the plain language of left or you could you could have added there could be an extra language in here and say that if we lose the suppression hearing we can we can appeal that to i think that without having actually predicted what was going to happen or knowing where this appeal was going to go there was no way for us to predict which whether or not we would get in that first question how is that different than any other conditional plea there's always the risk you don't know what exactly going to happen that's that's the deal you cut with the government and most of the  with specify pretrial motions that have already been had an adverse decisions on those on those i'm sorry on those motions that have already happened before you reach the point of coming to an agreement the government about whether or not you would you know conditionally creat in again it seems unreasonable to expect that we would conditionally please conditionally agree reserve the right to appeal an adverse decision on the timeliness of emotion and and forego our right to also that  if it was just for this one thing on the other hand it is so specific but again that forms the plain language of will have an a which requires that we select an adverse decision on a specified pretrial motion again we didn't have an adverse decision at that point you had to be you didn't have an adver entering this plea agreement and waivers generally a intentional relinquishment of a known right and given that you didn't know you had that right at the time your argument is the other way i would look at it is it seems silly to to waive yeah it seems to me that hearing it and appealing an average are two sides of the same coin they're almost the same thing and terms of what your you know the ultimate merits of the why would you wave one and not the other or not  meaningless there's all sorts of appeals fights and motions in which a defendant doesn't even get consideration on the merits because over of a procedural bar here on the procedural bar was the district courts implementation of a timing rule that the government believed it wasn't fair and therefore the government conceded on appeal in the first appeal that the district court should have heard the motion on the merits that is exactly the adverse in the plea agreement as the adverse decision that the defendant reserve the right to appeal from that's what you are to ten to eleven in the plea agreement docket twenty eight is the ex parte application that is the timing order exactly what motion he was reserving the right to appeal from and he did he specified the ex parte application docket twenty eight not the motion itself docket twenty nine that is why the appeal waiver should be enforced and the defendant derived a substantial benefit from this appeal wafer in this case the government just missed an aggravated identity theft count that carried with it a two year consecutive mandatory term of imprisonment and the defendant's total term of imprisonment was only forty six months which was below the low end of his guidelines range so he did derive a substantial amount from this plea agreement and the government had to consent to that conditional plea it did so knowing that what the defendant preserved was the right to a hearing on the merits of his motion and that is exactly what he got in the first appeal in fact he wrote in his own brief the district court improperly refused to consider his suppression motion that is what the government agreed with it said there should be a remain for consideration and that is what this court granted the order says the parties agree that the motion deprived of a fair hearing because they were able to cross examine the police officers and the police officers there seemed to be sent discrepancy between the police reports and the decorations so i would i would address the merits by starting with that question your honor and sort of referring back to what judge dorsey was pointing out which is that the local rule that this court has upheld multiple times requires the defendant to put the fact at issue there a declaration he certainly could have done so in a reply brief in support of his motion to suppress once he believed that the government was raising additional facts he could have filed another declaration at that point putting other facts that issue he chose not to do so what he did file was a two sentence declaration in support of his motion to suppress and not one fifty four and as judge dorsey points out the only issue he raised in that was whether he consented but the other point i would make on the merits and i think this is critical is that really rather than go through the law school exam type analysis of every fourth amendment issue here i would urge the court to focus on one fact which is that these officers found that this car had been supreme court the byrd case that's a case from this year and it says pacifically and i quote a person present in a stolen automobile at the time of the search may not object to the lawfulness of the search of the automobile so setting aside all of the concerns about was there reasonable suspicion was there a stop was there probably cause this defendant cannot challenge this search because he was in a stolen automobile there's one report that i think that's in this was to go back to the initial stop with the government's position obviously is that there was no stop when the officer first began to question the defendant but if there was that there was a reasonable suspicion based on the missing front license plate and that under this court's precedents that the police are entitled to ask certain questions of any person during a terry stop i think that's the turban case that the government side cites and it's brief that so long as it doesn't unreadably prolong and if you listen to the recording it wasn't a very lengthy exchange before the officers actually started to determine that there was probable cause here this is the car parked when it was parked late at night in front of a residence in glendale and the reason that the officers were first responding was because they got a nine one one call from a woman who was scared to come out of her home because it was late at night and she didn't recognize the car or its occupants so the officers did have a reasonable suspicion but i think going back to the stolen vehicle report it's relevant also for the purposes of the inventory search exception or the inevitable discovery exception and i think it's extremely important to that point because there is no real debate that the police have the right to impound a stolen vehicle even if it turns out that somehow this defendant had the right to be in it he didn't know it was stolen it was borrowed when they get a report the police see that this vehicle has been reported stolen they have the right to impound it and in connection with that they have the right to conduct an inventory search so i don't think the court should reach all any of these issues based on the appellate waiver but if it does i think the easiest and clearest route to a firm is to focus on the fact that this was reported as a stolen vehicle so not going for bonus points honor just to clarify with respect to the final questions as to whether or not the appellate waiver here precludes review you know again i would argue that there's no reason why my client would waive appellate review  suppression hearing and reserve the right to have one i think that they both go hand in hand and the appellate waiver should not be construed to preclude review of this issue is that your argument that rule levin eight t it your client from including a merits based decision on that suppression motion in the waiver clause it's simply that the plain language requires only that  we specify an adverse decision on a specified pretrial motion and there hadn't been one yet and so there was no way to predict what that decision would look like what parts it would look like and there was no way to specify the docket number that didn't exist as to what that adverse decision would look like so so i guess my question is would it have been impossible under the rule in your in your position to have included something that said any potential merits based decision post raymond at that point we didn't know whether we would get or remember but you didn't know that it was certainly foreseeable it was potentially forseeable your honor but i still think that based on the plain language of the rule we complied with it in how we created a conditional and that plea agreement the very intention behind the parties coming together and agreeing to at least appeal and get a suppression hearing on the merits indicates that we were also willing to conditionally greta to appeal those the merits decisions i mean why would we ask for decision if we weren't intending to appeal that merits decision i think that seems to be the sixty thousand dollars question here but again i would also point to one other thing with regards to whether or not we receive raises sufficient factual declaration that the defendant can't declare a defendant declaration according to local rule has to be about information that he's competent to testify about he's not competent to testify about what in the office or specialized training and experience leads them to believe that this is a high crime area or leads them to believe s hat is somehow suspicious or leave them to believe that a security vest somehow suspicious or leads them to believe that they didn't have to check the back of the car for a vehicle code violation he's not competent to testify as to those matters that is the mindset of the officers in their experience in specialized training and we should have