fork he is raising his suppression challenge in this case and is based on two separate things one the district court erred by not having frank's hearing and then secondly the evidence in this case was insufficient to dress that was leaders so in the central district of illinois the fleece apparently are not providing more issue judges with criminal history of the confidential sources and of course under glover in other cases that is something that the reasonably well trained officer is required to do because if there's crime the witnesses credibility in a that's the probable cause determination by the judge mr heller we said in united states versus clark that of frank's hearing is not required every time some substantial adverse information about in it form its credibility is omitted from the probable cause affidavit and here specifically it's there was more than just the officer saying i'm relying on a reliable confidential informant all of this was going on and on over the wire and so the officer was able to listen to order in real time and hear what was going on so why isn't that enough under the franks fairly high standard of intentionally recklessly disregarding the truth sufficient sure well we are uncertain that the officer gave you those things that it is not something that i don't think are you sure that's what he testified to he said it was on the wire and it was he was there i believe he said it was on the wire but i don't recall specifically that he said that he was there beginning to and listen to all of our you judge but i mean even if you did listen to what the information was that was provided to that i don't want you should be judged we have make it reliable but we have to know what was recorded and what was said so if we have an unreliable see that or the officer himself is now you're a cloud because his testimony is not especially libel concerning these things those are things audio recordings or transcripts of the audio recordings never provided none of that was provided in the context of wasn't offered at the state you're in and it's not in the record or  was or you would be telling us this discovery wasn't turned over rect we have no record of any party to it we just have the officers we kept what it says and course the officers reliability is an issue hearing i don't see and difference between these two things there should have at least been a hearing because of us but what i mean that because we don't have an absolute rule about needing a franks hearing every time there's one of these to me this is one of those issues that a state judge wouldn't be shocked i think that a c s or c s one and c s two had a criminal record now you're right you know we don't know if they were drug dealers if they were murderers they were bank robbers and whatever they may have been but the state judge could well have wanted to prove to probe that the way the c s was being used might have thought it made him think  mr wood works residence so all of these things judge they need in particular would go to whether or not there is reliable information such that the violation frank's in i'll be overcome because this does not have an which is really the focus of of your attack anyway and there are questions posed to officer crawly and you place great weight on the fact that  north franklin street which is actually about a block and two houses further away and if that were the only thing in this transcript it seems to me you might have a point but by the time you get to the back of the transcript you know that the state judge is perfectly aware that you know mr wood for want of the c s to come to his house and the judge says the judge repeats the address of the house and the judge is very specific in saying there is probable cause for the search of one thousand two hundred and twenty north franklin i don't think the judge was misled at all by this sort of vague geographical reference just like you might say you know the court houses near dearborn and monro instead ask for a search warrant of a residence where there's no testimony that any c s has ever been there observed any drug bombing sufficient to say the drug trafficking in likelihood of evidence to be discovered there on issuance and search oh those are genuine intentional or breathless disregard judge apply the ice or my remark in that last that was going to whether or not there's probable cause and under owens in mcneil i would say that was not not simpson on behalf of the united states i'd like to address st a question that was asked i believe by judge st t about whether the defense had to be courting the out of the recorded drug drug transaction  deference to the probable cause finding a by this issue just warrant so i think we need to step back for a moment and look at what the state judge was seeing here this is not a case where the judge was presented just with a written affidavit and had to take it or leave it so this week rather the state judge had the police officer testifying in front of him face to face the judge could assess the officers credibility and ask whatever questions he  were needed to assess a problem the officer knew before hand that the judge would be able to ask him questions and the judge did ask questions so the judge could determine under the circumstances at the time it was clear that what for was dealing drugs at the time and that was a controlled drug by monitored by wires so the law enforcement officers could hear the transaction and they didn't have to rely on what the informant told them that happened after the facts if i could respond to some of the things that the that the defense responds in relation to those to those main facts they basically try to poke a few holes in this structure but the structure resubmit still stands st of all in relation to the confusion about what fixed location the officer initially made that comment about the intersection of franklin and english officer was clearly testifying that the target location for the warrant was wood for its residents next in relation to the informants criminal history would st says their criminal one mr simpson testimony on the precise location where the search which is what the probable cause is to show there wasn't a ton of evidence it's kind of light that this occurred at this particular location there wasn't a ton your honor there can always be more to support to a problem cause but we submit that in this case it's sufficient  it's not just probable cause that mr wood fork was dealing drugs it has to be probable cause that they're going to find evidence of the traffic at the location correct the evidence about the location is is a bit light so what's the best evidence before this court in the officers testimony that links the drug dealing to that location two things your honor one of the defense said in response to questioning by the state court judge he says this is page seven of the transcript line line thirteen the officer says quote mr wood for wanted this to come to mr w house due to concerns of retaliation and things like that this c s did not want to go to mr whitford sal's indicating that he had the drugs at his house and then the judge asks quote and so would  point that you started with the fact that he was an overnight guest at this location that wasn't before the court wasn't that in the record but in terms of what the state court knew i didn't think that particular fact was appeal here you can only look at what the state court judge had front of him to assess the warrant that's correct that's correct your honor so it's really the statements about the c s wanting to go to his house and the officer saying that the intersection was known as one thousand two hundred and twenty that is the residence and even more your honor that page seven a couple of pages later in the says the criminal history wasn't presented to the state court judge and that's correct but the officer testified that the police had used both of those informants previously and it found them to be reliable perhaps the most important the most one of the most salient facts here your honour's is that the st by was a controlled by monitoring by wire so the officers didn't have to rely on the informant to describe the transaction actually accurately afterwards this isn't the kind of situation where someone just comes to the police and say hey i know that someone has drugs at their house they actually knew they actually heard that miss to work for  informant and has as one member of the panel i believe it was a judge saying he pointed out the judge could have assumed that the informants had some criminal history and he could have asked about that if he had felt it material the judge here and the issuing judge is in the best position to know whether that information was needed to assess probable cause it's a challenge he had the circumstances so let me ask you this  judges conclusion i really can't imagine concluding that the state officers acted in bad faith here very long and those warrant is specially where most importantly especially where the officer testified in front of the state judge and the judge could ask all the questions that he saw he thought necessary and the officer knew that he could ask all the questions he thought necessary it seems to me it would be extraordinary to find that the officers acted in in relying on a warrant issued by that your age just a few more comments if i could on the franks issue i think a lot of what we've already talked about applies to the to mr whitford request for frank's hearing to secure frank's hearing the defendant has to show that the officer intended to mislead the judge who issued the warrant and there's absolutely no evidence of that here the officer testified face to face he answered all the judge testimony and i believe both of them also i believe neither of them involve situations where there were controlled by both of those cases where situations where an informant was simply saying i'm aware i and so this is a material signet materially significant feature of the case relative to owens because of owens there was proof the drug transaction that occurred at that place to be searched and there was then a finding that there was enough evidence here there's no the place where the drugs are stored that is not uncommon that's why this is not enough to say they both agreed to go meet at the residence residence has no in dishes in it rather has no facts in the record show that there are drugs to be found at that residence where the two people