my client was allowed to file on a three supplemental a reply brief on another issue i'm going to confine my remarks primarily to the search of the car issue not that i'd waiving any other issue that i've raised or he's raised  that this woman rented this car from budget rent a car she rented for her for i think boyfriend or good friend roger so he could look for a job she she didn't put him down as an authorized driver but that's why she read the car and know this is going to require us to take mohammed and pass one step further because both of those cases are premised on the fact that the person who gave permission was the authorized to write in this case the person who gave them permission was and i don't authorize stripers correct it is so all that's going to be our that's going to be our issue i think we have to face in this case are we going to said she knew rogers who let other people drive and she didn't tell him that he couldn't do that so i think she's implicitly giving her permission to roger to allow other people to drive  in fact she said she's not surprised at rish on long she knows him she knew he was a very good friend of roger she was told that ray shot along was driving the car prior to this incident even occur roger told her gave the keys to ray shon she didn't at that time say get him back i don't give him permission so i think under the facts of this case you can impute that permission that she gave roger then he's driving it that day and he parked it behind his house he knows the woman but she doesn't recognize him and i want to go through all the facts you know the courts where the facts are in any event the police are called they come they see this abandoned car the owner of the property wants it gone then my client comes running up and says wait wait wait that's my car so they find out it's around a car and they call it was a budget rent car they call budget for some unknown reason to me budget money answered the phone during business hours and so they can't find out who it was rented the car so they decide to tow the car but their policy says an abandoned car should not be towed unless the person is given a ticket or summons they don't give him a ticke not going to give him a regular let him drive it off they're going to take it for them and isn't subject well they run his record through first you know and then they find there's this warrant out of what they think was his a mystery but once again how they can confuse missouri and kansas i don't know but it was a can't see kansas warrant they benchley find that out it's not extraditable so he should be free to go there is nothing holding but they don't let him go they keep him locked up handcuffed in a police van so they can search the car and the officer testifies i wanted to search the car to see if there was anything illegal we could detain him on they also call the special unit and they find out my client's name and they also they call the special unit who has this i don't know there's some notice out to always call this particular officer if this kline is arrested so they call it so he takes over they know there's no worn out there and they have no legal reason to keep him but they keep him detained and their distress and this officer instructs the initial officer book ballo to open the car well he has it the tow truck driver i think was slammed to open the car that again violates the policy the policy specifically says one of vick was a jerk to be abandon or deliberately park and is causing a problem or a hazard which this car is because she doesn't want their officers will talk the vehicle officers will make every a reasonable document any item left in the vehicle that is in plain view on the towing report the officer should also document the report of the it was that items were observed in plain view and that the vehicle was secured at the scene not forced open any loc vehicle the officers testified they were specifically the policy is specifically was your not to force open a car in this situation you just or that they forced it open in violation of their own policy the to the defense has put forth five arguments two are advanced by fence counsel three by the end of the self a focus on the argument that the defense counsel focused on during her time and i think judge logan i think you hit the nail on the head which there is a threshold argument and at no point during the suppression hearing did the defendant demonstrate that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this call as a whole sentence make i believe you brought didn't mean to do that your honor but i would say that yes in fact the defendant did lack standing to bring to claim that his fourth member tribes were violated the car was not owned by the defendant or was not rented the defendant nor was his name on the rental agreement the car standing there are two issues in regard to the search one was that the defendant gave consent for the search to take what he said it would be ok and he explicitly said that it would be fine to look in the car for the police to do that not only did he give consent but again as was mentioned during defense counsel's argument the owner of the property on which this car sat one of this car removed from the property the defendant ran up claimed that car was hit yet presented no direct evidence that in fact he had control of the car and he had no keys to the car he was just claiming that yeah that's my car and so still we have a problem where there are no keys to access them nor it can't be moved except by the tow truck driver who is rapidly approaching and so again we have the property owner saying i want this car going to my property but if this was a consent search why are we even talking about inventory structures it's just it the scene in the story was required yes ok but that's not what happened that the police officer dying of curiosity instructed the director to open the car i think  pretext i understand the inference but again we have to look at the objective facts rather than his subjective intent and if his subjective intent in fact correlated with the policy that case he had which was in every instance where you tell us are honest him and or search and he has be in the story searches protect the word or we just left with the consent issue i don't know what the fine yes if if in fact this court finds that the defendant did have standing no point testify that she gave permission to rasha along and in fact the magistrate court judge described her testimony as dubious at best i believe were his words and but without a doubt there was no affirmative evidence that she had ever given permission to brush on long specifically to me dr r and i think as a threshold measure that should end in the end there were a couple other arguments advanced by the defendant it to a third party named roger and that roger somehow gave this card oh i shall also that this is this is that extra step next this is why mohamed and best really don't have a leg to stand on in this case because the lawful renter at no point gave permission to rachana long himself to give permission to someone else in iran if it had been roger running up the hill and he had the keys perhaps he might actually have a claim for a reasonable expectation of privacy at least under mahommed numerous thirty five to three factors at play the criminal history the nature of the offense to the event promoting respect for the law and his salute we name each and every one of these he described it as a case like no other i asked for forty years in sentencing the judge gave the defendant thirty years and it was because of his numerous endeavors into the killing of various people we presented evidence on three murders of this man as well as another attempted murder that got someone paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of the li anything to hold the defendant on he admitted the purpose of the image or search in this case was to try to find something illegal if they were unsuccessful and they will then they would let the defendant go so they held him and that was their purpose and they forced the car open  to accomplish their purpose and i think it was protection there was no consent that was that was objected to the government has nothing to show consent in this case