that the warrant would not purport to be extraterritorial application work to have i guess i should say extra tauriel application know the it in this case i think what's very important it was actually pointed out by the f b i it i agent is that there were a number of warrants issued by the same security or court judge affidavits issued i believe that there were separate affidavits but i apologize that i don't recall now whether that's accurate or not certainly there was information that the the application for the order that's and record does address as you've noted the multiple vehicles or trackers were acting but there doesn't seem to be anything in that application that i apologize i don't know that answer maybe mr pollard can answer that for the court but the important i think what the important issue is is that this is not a case where we're arguing that the jur monitoring is in fact a search under the fourth amendment but in current or the supreme court went so far as to say that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements and so i and in this piece there warrant unlimited that invasion into indiana and so the parameters of the warrant which define what the law enforcement officer may do and the ample we have an individual who lives in a and he's a search warrant is given for house any that means that the law enforcement officers can say hey it looks like he's out of house b let's go search house even though those not talking about iraq so we're not talking about had person we're not talking about him but well that's true even though in iraq there would likely there would have to be a war under most circumstances but the in fact observed by law enforcement how do you get around cast into this court's decision that said that the porth amendment doesn't concern state borders the constitution is what defines a constitutional rights and it was a it's not identical search was a homeowner who information gathered as a result the g p s tracking was used in that affidavit to justify the search warrant there was no standing for that individual to challenge that it would not be bound by state law concerns that is not with this case this because we are not arguing for example that the warrant is invalid outside of the state of indiana because of the state law limitations and the security of court judges authority that is not what we're arguing this is an unusual case because the warrant actually limited the search beyond the borders  r they did it as often happens practicality and trial the witness testified that it appeared to her that the the video that was offered by the government did not in fact not in fact recall seeing the individual who was depicted in the video and could not identify the specific day that she had waited and the other customer who she was famil arm able to lay the foundation for the admission of that video why isn't that a weight issue because she didn't testify to refute except the twenty five that it truly and accurately depicted what happened that day and then i cross examination the judge said that there there could have been some confusion going on why isn't that in issue of wait for the jury to make a determination as opposed to admissibility because she already it truly inaccurately depicted what happened that day well first of all your honor that out of crafter foundation we have a question of relevancy we don't know when that video was actually taken so if in fact it was taken five days previous to the date that seemed to appear on the corner of the video without it being established that in fact it happened on the date question that we have a problem and under the now it happens with four o two and four zero three one which they cannot establish the fact that that video has any relationship whatsoever to the bank robbery was that even the day it took place was not even raised yes in fact it was race whether or not that happened on that day and and i quoted in my brief your honour's i believe it's on page twenty thirty but in fact in response to my questioning regarding the ability of the teller to verify that in fact that video was from that specific date her response was i mean there is really nothing to dispute that day and any other time that he comes in i was referring to what gave her some around that time and what typically happens when you're dealing with testimony from a witness who says they don't perhaps always understand all of the foundational requirements of the rules but she then again testified do you recall somebody on page three sixty five do you recall the gentleman coming in the bank yes i'm familiar with him do you recall the individual bit the other individual mr bird in the bank i do recall somebody entering into the bank she's recalling this day not on her own independent recollection she contradicted your own testimony well i think the question is what did she mean by her testimony and i think that the fairest interpretation of the testimony that i can come up with that we've been able to come up with is what she was essentially saying is her memory is refresh by the video does she have an independent recollection independent of the video would she have recalled that customer coming in would she have recalled that interaction no but you can refresh your witnesses recollection from the witness stand by showing them things and having them say yes i remember that i think the best defense counsel said you have no independent recollection of waiting on him in the morning  circumstances on an abuse of discretion review where a possible interpretation is that the witness was either a confused or be doing her best to answer some very pointed diligent cross examination as accurately as possible i absolutely don't remember him coming in that morning he came in that afternoon but i don't remember him coming in the morning and he did it to me it's rendered problematic because he wasn't convicted or even charged with he came in he's then seen some other time that day at the autozone across the street loitering in your anything and so putting all of those pieces together i do think it matters any testimony today an agent or somebody else bank you know it was in ohio it's in a suburb of toledo ohio so it and we did not have any one of the ready we would have either had to recess the trial for a day and bring someone from toledo to do that or forego admission of the team was there any issue raised with respect other than these five robberies i'm not sure i've seen a report of people dropping sticks out the door of the defendant to make a big deal about the fact that in this particular instance the stick didn't end up between the door but i think that's a distinction without a difference if you look at the  your honor's specifically cites modus operandi as being still valid evidence and i don't think that gomez calls into doubt any of these cases as for the fact that he didn't walk into the bank and ask for currency that's the entire point of why th evidence is relevant george roden or because their argument why this on the three indiana bank robberies he's just going into the bank and asking for currency but in this robbery and in the ohio robbery he didn't do that he found a different way to case the bank rather than by walking in and making a request that's going to cause the tellers to story around looking for something they don't normally do and these are very distinct robberies if you watch the videos of these robberies here this is a fairly distinctive figure completely covered shrouded head to tell rushing into the bank carrying a black bag dropping a stick at the door whether it lands on the door handle or not approaching silently covered completely in a ski mask or other document odd and disturbing so that is that is where any bank right well all bank robberies are terrifying but these are are unique and they're distinct and that was the entire point of the ban place to be searched and the thing to be seized so example that my opponent gave if i have a warrant that says i can search this particular place house ok i can't then go and search house be no matter how much i think that i have probable cause for and i have to go back to the magistrate but what the supreme court said and richard what this court said in martin is if you've got those three things that there's other things that the warrant says you have to do and you don't do them that's not right that's not you know we shouldn't be doing that that's negligent behavior but that doesn't violate the fourth amendment and the fourth amendment is what triggers an exclusionary rule so as long as you stay in the box here we have a neutral magistrate here we had probable cause and here we had a particular description of the place to be searched the volvo and the thing to be seized its geographic location and none of those things dissipated when that car crossed over state line avenue from indiana to illinois and none of those dissipated as the car kept driving all the way to los angeles to commit the additional bank robbery and because of that this case essentially is the same thing as martin in the martin case the warrant expired so the kind of in that case the magistrate found there was probable cause put in a time mr action the time restriction expired we violated the time which group said should not happen but we did but it didn't violate the fourth amendment and that means the exclusionary rule is not trigger is there any suggestion here that the fact that the outside of n p r well there's plenty of evidence that they were already robbing banks outside of indiana so there's plenty of probable cause to suggest that tracking their vehicle is going to show information outside of the state affidavit that's a thirty seven dash two or was there a separate one you know my understanding of the way these investigations work and i would have to verify this is they basically have that got in the computer and then you just add on you just keep adding information as it comes  i think if i go back and look at the warrants it looks like that's what happens with those words are not in the record so that's not the record you are given that these were bank robberies under the f b i jurisdiction like that law enforcement going to say court in the first place and that go to a federal  why they did that your honor i think they were going back to the judge they had gone to before and i think also just at least in our jurisdiction timing wise it's often you can get a state magistrate twenty four seven and it's well you can get a federal magistrate twenty four seventy but i don't want typographic error this could be somebody putting something in that they hadn't before because they became concerned about something i'm not really sure as far as we know there isn't any in the analog about whether these can be applied extraterritorial or not in some states have said you can do th reasons that i've already stated we do believe that the four a four b evidence was properly admitted in that we did sufficiently authenticate the ohio said that if the court disagrees and thinks that the ohio information was insufficiently admitted and that that that ohio evidence should not have come in we would again submit that that was harmless error that it's in light of the evidence of the indian or robberies and the evidence of the california robbery which is not implicated at all by the authentication issue that the evidence from those four robberies along with an an alternative ground we think that there just was no one one time walking into a bank and somebody robbing it in this distinctive fashion after is a coincidence too you should probably start playing powerball and three there is no the floor of where be issued is really a very important one for a lot of presents the banner at the admission of the banner bank was crucial because it was very clear and though the jury didn't hear that there was matters it would be harmless is simply not not accurate they had an overwhelming effect on the trial because the three bank robberies that mr brewer was charged with he was never seen i don't believe was in his name it was in someone else's name there was also information that there was another man and woman living in that house but i would emphasize your honour's that early in throughout this trial there was problems with several videos that the government attempted put to put him on the very first date there was some street videos from various and sixty's that the government did not get in because in fact they were not able to lay a proper foundation i mention that only because they government just think that this was somehow a surprise to the government that there would be a problem with their admission of the evidence in fact one of the businesses that they attempted to get  appropriate witnesses to get those that evidence under these circumstances your honor so they did not lay the foundation to introduce the ohio bank robbery and therefore a reversal is required because of the world fo