see that the judge did that and then state is that correct rather the issue here regardless of what happened pretrial the issue here is whether the co believe or not believe there the trial court should have weighed circumstances relating to the deterrent effect and whether or not the evidence should be considered your responsibility to establish prejudice face upon the admission of the evidence that was waiting at the trial court exercised its discretion to measure understanding correctly you're asking use your time's up you'll have an opportunity to make one thank you there's no way around and that is the only thing the prosecutor was emphasizing so in those circumstances i think it was it your position and i understood what you just said is that the prosecutor was bringing this to the court's attention so that of course presumably being aware of the amendment would know that this there was a very general question asked do you have anything else to tell you have any other information there was no specific seeking of information about the we can we come to case three and he says there were no there is counsel point in on these cases i mean how do we if the purpose is to deter on lawful conduct by police officers how do we do the f a saying oh well you know we're supposed to ask questions about crimes against i think looking at the motivation behind interrogation and what is motivating we gather information initially in this case about the stepdaughter segue into then i gather that if you were to weigh in the future other instances over the violation of the th amendment you would find that the officer rule where they were already aware of defendant be represented by counsel on their right and they proceed to simply mirandized and then question regarding that crime and then a fire person that's obviously in good faith he was questioning him and then yes there was a general question asked given this event is history of sex crimes against minors that was a reasonable question to ask we want to get any information you can and i think the officer needs  if he was a man i know anything it would probably be something that he's done something that he hasn't done and he supposedly did something because he's being prosecuted for it so the probabilities are that the open ended question will be answered with information relating to there which is most probable and or the defendant has a lawyer then he police officer was put on notice that open ended questions could easily result in a vial mission of the defendant's constitutional rights and if the police officer was a reasonably competent police officer he could ask questions that wouldn't enc or any other question thank you your time is up you won't have to answer the question there was a stipulation that there was no need for anything to be placed on the record as a factual basis to determine whether or not the police officer did or did not know whether or not he was violating the individual's rights correct the th amendment violation the harm to the defendant or the violation of his rights is what that evidence is introduced against at trial therefore we excluded but here the violation heard some weeks months increases