iowa this is a th amendment suppression case and and other rather than reciting the facts which are quite straightforward the district court relied on persons involved in that case were overnight guests they were staying overnight at a birthing clinic and so the circuit had no problem finding that because they were overnight guests or they really that there was no distinction made the motion to suppress and it was after the government made some objections that the district court then rejected the magistrate's reasons for ranching emotion the nd reason the district court  warrant for that brain spock's that was locked and they did not have that so the collective knowledge start from is based upon the promise that not there was enough information that the officers possession connecting your client sooty information underlying the warrant that is the distribution of drugs out of this location it seems to me and correct me if you think that run but it seems to be the case turns on that particular issue and if i recall here there was a meth found next to your client on the couch there was information the officers had when they had seen the war and that there were multiple people staying in the house yeah officers had some background with your client whether or not that you know is relative i guess i'm not sure but why isn't that enough to connect your client and her brakes b to the probable cause determination that it was found at the doors it is as i mean it would be sufficient probable cause and if the officers believe that that was indeed the case found sleeping on a couch i guess the st clue that someone is an overnight guest or a visitor and she was ordered to she was removed from the car she placed into a different room and that's where the responsibility to get it get a nd warrant just as they did get a nd more into a search the person of the phone so yes whether there was probable cause boxes generally there's a meth pipe there's a brinks box it's in the proximity of the defendant but there's no assertion by anyone that's my brinks box there is no question asked i guess either about it's let's sort of problematic but i mean you got a warrant enhanced as you can search lock boxes you've got a meth pipe in a locked box why do you need another war know that people are coming and going and that they're involved in the salem buying of drugs that's that's in the warrant and so this is a person who's dressed in her night clothes it's night in the morning during the course of the search she says all the houses mind you know i'm not i mean i'm having a hard time you know all that you know cut through the whole chase i mean i'm saying you know at the very end the very end i mean house and i have certain not able to rely on a warrant that says i can look in lockbox well they could if they knew that person was living in the home because this person was a guest i guess have  officer would would would know that i mean it's a lock box next to a meth pipe on a couch well yes that's true but what's also what the court struggled with that at the district court level was the fact that the officer that found the box and search box didn't testify and was never called as a witness so we don't know those things you're assuming a lot of things that the officer knew it knew this or that and there was no testimony regards to that at all the only thing that we knew we we know that the officers know was that miss summer maker the defendant didn't reside at that house we know that they've known her firm since she was a child so they knew she wasn't the name person in the warrants so that's what we know the officer who found the box and searched the box never testified for reasons that we don't know i'd like to reserve the last minute  time lock box in question was searched it was within the scope of the war issued and to the extent it does not this is not a case that would warrant suppression as the officer's actions were not deliberate reckless or negligent negligent done arguing for standing in this case she was found asleep in the residence she said indicated that we don't know that they knew she wasn't living there i don't know that officers would be able to say that they didn't know she was living there they didn't anticipate going in that she was living there but upon arrival i don't think they could have established whether or not at that time for sure she had moved in the senate was the only adult downstairs she was in close consisted with an overnight stay her daughter was no that frequent that residence and her granddaughter was also present defended also had had a recent drug conviction of her own she had been involved in a federal case where her husband was charged ultimately she was not in that case and rather than use had a history of drug use and people coming and going and dealing from that residence defended again was sleeping on the couch with a meth pipe and it breaks box indicating side specifically swearing in muscatine county sweatshirt has a hat on that's done in the transcript that page fifty seven turning them to governors exhibit number seven with the knowledge of what mr fry looks like indicate before you do that we're going to need to search you essentially because of all the things that were going on over there on the couch area indicating that he was aware that she was the one there  watching exhibit number seven you can get a better sense of the kostas the room and the participants in this case all the officers and milling around all the defendants are milling around it's a close quarters area you can see the room off to or this and this has been not being out of prison for the ten to fifteen years this is a reference to his recent or fairly recent federal sentencing time based on the facts in this case it is clear that this defend magistrate court admitted the address that issue but the district court was not concerned with that as it recognized collective knowledge doctrine and in this case found instead the objective knowledge of the officers made it appropriate for these officers to search a lockbox as noted that was specifically listed in the war effort so based on all of these facts we believe the district court properly decided this  issue would know that there's been no question to whether or not this defendant had standing but it is her standing and the reason she has standing that is the same reason that officers are able to search her property rights her connection to the house  this is not a situation where officers came upon a defendant in a residence and it appeared that she had just gotten there or was merely stopping briefly she was asleep the fact that she was sleeping  essentially with this lockbox given her history and the history in this case it's also makes it more suspicious that there is contraband in the box and it was appropriate to search unless the court has any questions for me that is essential to the government's argument and if there's no questions i would yield the rest of my time thank you very much mr sheets party in the magistrate found without any objection from the government that officer fry was unaware of any statements made by the defendant regarding her ownership of the box or its contents on that one office there is no facts in the record that officer saw a methamphetamine pipe prior to his decision to search the box and so when you look at those facts i mean  now we know them but we don't at the time of the search we don't have any evidence as to this officer knew he wasn't presented by the government as a witness and so i've ask the this court to follow the findings of fact of the magistrate that were objected to at the time and i don't think it makes any difference whether officer frye who searched the box what he was wearing or what he looks like and i'm not sure