i for the record i would like to read reserve two minutes for argument but your honor the facts of this case are fairly straightforward on july eighth i believe of two thousand and three  the appropriate driver's license a dedication and registration to the vehicle and he was not according to testimony of the officers in any way indicating that he was intoxicated under the particularly suspicion which i believe is the language that the shop has court uses as well as the voluntariness stuff deconstruct the district court level which separate the two but let's take the first one the district court identified as i recall a number of factors all fact that this sheriff's deputies world where of its citizenry determine what house your client had come from and believe judge whaley found that those factors least on that first issue as to the fact that they could continue their investigation based on facts that the court found after the hearing so what this case really turns on is whether or not because it is well known we do not lose on those issues that for the reasons i stated and i do need to move on to see that question is inappropriate basically there are only two factors in this case that that were cited those were that he didn't know the name of the last name of the person of the owner of the vehicle and that the officers leading to believe from the officers part they claimed that the op the vehicle was stolen and that his origin  report says is to assume they did not clearly understand everything i was saying but in the district court find after hearing the testimony that that was a typo graphical error yes it did make that finding and we just did that and the reason is because own report which was also before the district court because they said in his report that he was checking the license registration make you're now asking us to make the credibility determination that we have to believe the report and not with the testimony i'm saying that this it is more accurate i'm saying that this finding it isn't supported by the evidence that for the court to say that what the state had the government has the burden of proof here they did not bring in banks who is the guy that took the statement why did they do that i think that's a failure of burden of proof just because one officer sent from far away well i heard i heard him give a concert that sounded voluntary to me you have a report from an officer saying he did not understand me there is that officer never came forward to contradict that but didn't they also have testimony i thought i read something in the record about the letters that the jail that he received from his wife all written in english that there was a detective who  at the time of the search not what he understood months later in jail or what he understood in jailhouse when he was interviewed subsequently by by the police these letters could have been interpreted for him i get there's no understanding indication that he understood it plus what we're talking about is what happened at the time so consensus failure proof the other aspect i want to bring up is the fruit of the poisonous tree i believe that the  that the purge the change was not broken the government doesn't really challenge that they say well the the arrest was legal therefore poisonous tree doesn't apply but they don't go into whether or not they take the taint under one s broken or not mr souter was in custody from the time he was initially arrested on the road to the time that he gave the subsequent statements unlike the defendant in one son who showed up three days later and voluntarily  at that point when the banks asked the follow up question ok well where are you coming from in his mind at least by the testimony of of us abate in their mind they're thinking possibly the car stolen at that point they're pawan and stuck just to determine whether the is stolen that's valid at that point now when they go back to as a training officer in training and confer about this stop and banks tell fates you know i've been told about this vehicle before and bates failed banks you know i've been told about this vehicle they had different reasons they didn't try to check out at the seizure if the car was stolen it's you initially stopping or checking the registration out but the consensus search around it was based on the information that they had connected or the driver that car somehow connected to that drug has to be in that house the position my position is yes i mean if you can articulate that one enough to say yes i have a reasonable suspicion based on other facts that i knew but just initially in their mind but when they conferred and they said you know we've seen this car before and i don't believe based on the testimony of officer based that they had thought about that information part of this but when they started conferring in the back of vehicle and the time is a testimony the very same expression here he's watching banks read the consent form and he said i didn't hear him read it to him but i it was in english i got back out and i witnessed him signing it that really but the basis for the search anymore and factually that's correct your honor i mean at the point it could certainly have been still stolen they actually took him back to that address to confirm that he was coming from that address so i think in their minds at that point and based on the basis testimony it kind of moved on at that point i mean yeah they were a little suspicious he didn't know when that kind of rounds are suspicious that he didn't know the name of the registered owner of the vehicle but when when when they saw the honey they knew