this case warrants it being brought on a direct appeal and i feel there is sufficient evidence in the record for you to be able to rule on this issue if not then and it's evident that the legal representation was so inadequate that his violated and the reason being is that there was an illegal search and seizure in the very beginning of this case you know yun of his attorneys brought this issue about a motion of suppression this motion them brought that he would have had success and and i believe looking acts and the law that there was a reasonable probability that the evidence should have been suppressed and if that was the case for mr hockey wouldn't be government argues that the evidence was being was being in plain view and see as tyler ever for the plain view argument to take place you have to have sort of all factors first you know the police officer has to be ok and they say yes everything is under control we're handling it's ok and then he proceeds to walk up to the car now if his argument like the government portrayed of his argument was well the car is running ok but it was off to the shoulder the lights were on it was you know perfectly ok where you are it's one of if you hadn't been in the car well i believe your honor that if somebody else had been in the car that the two one of the two officers would have been alerted to that fact because someone what that particularly the girl that was hysterical could have said look let me go or i have a child in the car or something to that nature to alert them to the fact that they needed to look into the car but there wasn't any such scenario if you went  running then you would have logically gone on to the side of the driver side to be able to turn the car off however he went around to the passenger side that was the door that was open and he did not try to turn the car in fact when you left the car was still running so he never did turn off the engine so it was left in that same situation however he took this flashlight and proceeded and this is where it's a search because he did not have a lawful right to be in that position to be searching for anything at that point if you had walked up to the car looked and just the other any other occupants in the car that would have been fine and that would have been justified however to take out a flashlight and start searching around and then look over on the passenger on the driver's side on the street to see this little baggie that contained looked like brown sugar actually and we use brown sugar in hawaii it could have been brown sugar one of the plain view arguments is you have to have a real suspicion that you know exactly what this is that you know that you're seeing in plain view he didn't then he proceeded to continue to search and find a glass pipe that was stuck behind beside the bottom of the passenger the passenger side door and the door now that's not in plain view he was looking he was searching so and my view point in looking at the evidence this was a search and he did not have a lot of lawful right to be there in the first place he didn't have any reasonable suspicion that there was anything illegal going on other than this domestic dispute that was happening he didn't have a reason to go in and try and see was there any drugs or contraband there was no such reason so he was outside the limits prison your honor and he was convicted on how do we know you wouldn't be spending more time well there was no charge she was not arrested so if you was not arrested for anything and if you find something illegally and they didn't have a right then you've taken away that that person's rights there was no reason for him to be arrested he wasn't under arrest at the time that they did the search so there was no reason if they hadn't a search and found anything he would've been up on dr charges so that was a prejudice to him that there would been no case at all if there was no search if nothing had been found because the domestic dispute did not create a reason to go in and search the automobile or didn't you know colloquy and other areas and the government is not relying on tainted evidence to get a conviction any of the allegations that the defendant me are only later to the reliability of the underlying prosecution  ten years and in the final plea agreement one charge was less and and he did not have to serve an additional consecutive five year term for the drug charge so he got a lower level of the drug charge and didn't have to do voluntarily asked where is my fifteen thousand dollars and where is my gun and there's no reason for him to bring up something to incriminate himself unless it was true it was easier looking at the inventory list they aren't the same conduct to continue i think it's one of the reasons that you have supervisory powers to dismiss a case is because of the conduct and it sends a message that we will not condone this kind of corruption in our criminal justice system and that's exactly what is going on there overlooking the investigation did nothing they didn't talk to only l who had the keys the door was unlocked and a significant amount of money was missing and who cares they don't care let's just send out the defendant because he pleads guilty he says he did it but that's not correct that's not why or justice system is here we need to start things like that from occurring otherwise it's going to continue if they don't get the message that you can't do this and that's why the motion to dismiss was brought forward on the issue