thank you your honor and please the court i don't have too much to say about this case and that's not in my brief so in total there was a very much a concern on my part as i was the coun in the lower court that this arrest of mr vegas was the mammoth to this day we believe the man was arrested for playing soccer the extent of what the police and the u s attorney's office did in order to disguise the nature of the arrest to disguise the discovery of informant was there was an informant the fact that this was all kept very quiet and not disclosed there were no reports of investigation that dealt with probable cause or what went on in this suppression of the evidence that led up to the finding of the identity of my clients which was also denied after an end camera hearing we challenge the procedure that judge morrow used in conducting that in camera hearing in that judge moore did not have the informant come before her but had the agent come before her and testify in camera yes we  were invited to submit questions to the agent which i did however your honors the problem is is that when you ask questions you usually have a foundation to base a question upon but when you're asking questions in the dark and kept in the dark there's no way to know what questions actually ask so we asked some broad ranging questions us to the foundational issues but not without a report of the investigation without even a report of the investigating officer to ask those questions there's no way for us to know whether the probable cause or not and to this day your honor i can't tell you other than the fact that just moral found that there are probably cause as far as we're concerned my client was arrested for playing soccer but i think what you have to argue is that it was wrong for the just the court to have receded camera or in secrecy in this way you have so what it's possible is legal is it not is appropriate for a district court to do exactly what the district court did here and if that's necessary to protect the well being of the safety of the informant then we can use that in  a towards the back part of my brief we did discuss the procedures that the court should have taken in questioning the informant and making her own determination as to the informants knowledge of the case the well number one the same informant that with all that in individuals who were arrested at the park we don't know what this informant knew about mr vegas as opposed to mr smith or mr jones or whoever else was picked up  the court is either and judge moore wasn't although she couldn't judge the credibility of agent she had no ability to judge the credibility of the informant so do you think in every case the district court has to test the credibility of the informant directly and i think your honor by not doing so and because in the cases that say that are in your brief well there's i think it's one case your honor that that i do cite the premise that defend and lou to some a few minutes ago other than that your honor so i don't have much more to say about this issue because as i said i don't know what the the court erik's over on the half the united states and the district court here i found that the find it was arrested not based on playing soccer but based on the information provided by a confidential source and that there was a strong basis for finding the confiden well i think that that's actually ultimately the inquiry when you're judging hedonism but in probable cause i think it's important to take a step back and say that this agent ordinarily would be the focus of the problem cause inquiry it doesn't there wouldn't be a problem in that circumstance so in actuality the agent is the most natural person to have testify about this at the time of the at the perceiving that took place here because it's important what the agent knew not necessarily what the confidential source the circuit case which had reached the same conclusion i'd also note at least as to the issue about whether the confidential informant should be called the defendant here and this is that government's extra record page thirteen didn't ask to even have any kind of examination here the court asked him do you want to examine witnesses or do you just want to see the filing of the government he indicated that he just wanted to see the filing that the government had made not to call witnesses the government's actually to record eighteen the district court was going through the options that it had available to it and the court listed why i guess i could call the confidential informant and but i don't understand to find it to be asking for that and defendant didn't have jack and say i am asking for that that's what i want to have happen in this circumstance and then the questions that were submitted to the court for use in this proceeding and at least my review of them they didn't specifically address the whether there was a confidential informant so i mean i  information was based on information provided by confidential informant we specifically said in the in the affidavit the reliability about the confidential source actually being alive on the path and said that a result of his information resulted in numerous arres and recovery of jory what the affidavit didn't indicate primarily was the basis of knowledge because that was the information that the government explained at the initial the initial public hearing on the us that would reveal the identity of the the record that indicates that the court in that case even permitted defense counsel provide questions or at least here the court went out of its way to prevent that same defense counsel vytas with the declaration did not  think it's clear from the record dealt with the basis of knowledge when the initial hearing that was scheduled to take place on the house and this is the government's actual record thirteen the court specifically asked what is it you want you want to call witnesses or do you just want to see what is the to that you could really have a rule that would interfere with copies of anonymous informants in general and if you have to have the informant testify at this in camera kurian i don't know how you could have an anonymous informant so i'm not sure i rule would be permissible i would also note simply having the confidential source or informant show up at the court proceeding itself has the danger of revealing the identity of the confidential source or foreman of the defense counsel defendant can be present outside the court room they can see the individual i'm not sure without some questions being raised at the hearing itself why that's necessary for me here if the district court in this examination of the agent had had some questions about the agent's credibility but certainly not circumstance would have been reasonable to call in the the confidential source of that point but as we indicated the agent is the focus of the problem cause aquarium with the district court did here was appropriate i'd be happy to answer any further questions on that or any questions about whether the fingerprints in general as opposed to a particular fingerprint card a suppressive will the court has of these questions otherwise the government would third twelve seventy six to twelve eighty it's a second circuit case out of action ninety six and i did footnote a case that was not pushed from this district in u s versus haste and thirteen fed  has ever tried to ask questions inside a box we were trying to do a sequential discovery of information with regard to the credibility of the informant this was not a  have to do that here if the district court examines the agent is satisfied that the agent acted reasonably upon the information because your honor i think that once again as i said before i think that if if that is the rule otherwise than the rule is wrong in that and we've learned through the egregious police abuse cases that we've just suffered over the last maybe let's say five to ten years  of the falsifications of certain law enforcement i'm not saying that this law force an officer was was corrupt in any way whatsoever i just don't know and i think the court judge moral has that burden to make an independent finding the species an independent branch of the government she is not the executive branch of the department of justice and she has to make those findings in order to south particularly particularly when it's all done in secret camera findings as the government says you know that they made in camera submissions of of affidavits that we were privileged to even in the submission of questions or or her  questioning of the agent just totally done in secret behind the back from the very beginning of this case very questionable as to why this was done still secretly if you want to talk about probable cause agent itself to not have probable cause to arrest mr vegas at that park on the on the on that day if he had probable cause it came from some other source from some other information they had that he should have been able to go out and get a warrant and come in and make a lawful arrest for the purposes of whatever purposes the government had at that point whether jewelry robbery or being an illegal alien in the united states and with that your honor i think that i thank you