a history of providing reliable information to law enforcement so additional scrutiny is required additional police work needed to be done to corroborate the information the source was providing to determine its reliability and that  would have neither drugs nor money i was a kilogram quantities of narcotics and place your if we stipulate for discussion purposes that the arrest is ok yes the police department was under a legal obligation in your view to leave the car well i know you're not explicitly in those terms but in order for it to be inevitable it would need to be necessary just by the definition of the term and evitable it saying that well maybe they could have taken it is not the same thing as saying they definitely would have which is what necessary to say that they would have found it in any case it's not just that well maybe they would have decided they could have tried to take it it's that they certainly would have and therefore the evidence would have been discovered regardless but i  even then they should have even gotten to that point because that information they had to even look in the car wasn't reliable to begin with essentially what they had is an informant who said oh in the past i've talked to this guy accept a deal they didn't do anything to would want to call him and told him to but that doesn't supply any information to corroborate that there was anything criminal that was going to occur in hindsight certainly they can say we know it did but all they had to time was information suggesting that they are not that  t the cooperating source knew mr kerry and could get him to show up in a parking lot there wasn't any information suggesting that it was an actual drug deal that was being discussed other than the unreliable word of the informant who had just been arrested and it's frankly naive to assume that somebody in that situation is always going to be telling the truth which is why this court has required corroboration just in connection with trying to possession of twenty six kilograms of cocaine i mean that's what the source said that because there wasn't any information that was actually i have suggested it was a drug that the informants work informant who had just been arrested and had every reason to implicate anybody other than himself they had no history of any reliable previous tips from this informant he had just been arrested there wasn't a chance to investigate anything he said about mr cherry his name he didn't even supply it a nickname for him at the time other than the fact that he was an average height black man with approximately two hundred additional indication of probable cause following that point the search of mr cherry's vehicle was certainly not permissible because there was no reason to arrest him to begin with i'll touch briefly science i started out further questions i will reserve the remaining of my time for about did you observe time i tend to back well you may have the two minutes the court good morning everybody they have united states beginning with probable cause the agents in this case had probable cause to arrest the defendant the district court correctly found evening reading culpa tory and giving them added credibility just no matter what was said and what happened later he did provide details information about the defendant who but the defendant who was scheduled who he was scheduled to deliver the dr thirteen of the killers to it giving a description of the person and nickname that the person went by a a description of the car he drove which was fairly unusual car and a telephone number  that the agents testified in fact that the that they planned to take the car that you know is assuming the things went as they unfolded the way they expected they planned on taking the car from the beginning and the question of necessity is there really isn't a question in the sense that you're it's a question of protocol and it would have been their protocol to to take the car to seize the car after the arrest and that's what they did do with respect to going back to the question himself as though he were there to conduct a drug transaction not to go to the movies as you mentioned you just got or he circled the parking lot before parking conducting counter surveillance park right next to the c s car got out of his car got no reason whatsoever for the agent to suspect or even think about that it's true that the defendant cross examined the agent based on the border of the taking of the pictures or recall that the eight that agent's testimony was unanimous with respect to when those taken so the timing relative timing of the photos is unimportant compared to the timing of the view now it's true obviously true that there might have been some arguments to be made with respect to the order about credibility based on those if it turned out that that that the photos were taken and that were that the defendant speculates they might have been taken but none of that just for now and in any event there is no basis whatsoever  he was told to take the pictures and he did not have a clear memory of either who told them or how to how it went he just took he was told take the pictures he took the pictures and there was not a good no one had a good memory of that event and are the government's focus a lot on the issue of the circling of the parking lot before mr cherry arrived to meet with that cooperated source i just don't see that as adding anything to the problem caused calculus that they didn't they didn't indicate exactly what made that so suspicious he could have simply been looking for it to see where the car was parked because meeting when he could have been doing any number of factors nothing about driving around the parking lot of makes it any more likely case going to a drug dealer essentially what happened here is the inform i know this guy he's the one i would deliver these drugs to i can get him to meet with me in the parking lot the guy shows up that's all they have allowing this to be i'm not probable cause to warrant an arrest basically just rubber stamps anything that a cooperating informant says after their arrest even if it is inculpatory for them that doesn't mean that it's reliable you can't base and arrest the terminations on something that a self serving individual says right after the just because they can get an individual to show up all he's proved is that he knows the person and then he can get him to agree to me to me as a proof that the guy was actually involved in a criminal offense or that there is even probable cause to believe as much which is what's necessary for the rest of