it please the court alexis to harry on behalf of the united states i have observed three minutes for rebuttal the district court suppressed evidence from both the initial warrantless search of mccormick place and the warranted search that followed this appeal does not challenge the suppression of evidence obtained from the initial entry instead it asks whether the warrant contained probable cause apart from that information and the answer to that question the government's admits is honor well officers beginning in october of two thousand and thirteen began investigating a harrowing distribution ring in the cincinnati area and during the course of their surveillance they observed  williams goli and their associates engaging in a pattern of behavior that was indicative of drug trafficking they were frequenting suspected stash houses on an almost daily basis they were they had no legitimate employment in drug felony histories they were all all sorts of that these individuals were engaging in drug trafficking and then we get to april of two thousand and fourteen and at that point officers observed this pattern of officers and seeing these associates engaging in a manner of behavior consistent with drug trafficking but then you have for short periods of time not saying overnight things about nature but that's exactly right things that they actually put into the w a question that the warrant the worn affidavit is approximately four pages and the information from the insertion of the key in the protective sweep takes up you know approximately three paragraphs a little bit less than that so there's a would i would point the court to a couple of other really strong to show probable cause first there was a pontiac montana and that vehicle first led authorities to this house  we're not appealing the suppression of evidence related to that initial entry your honor that they needed a war we were not appealing that the court's decision as to that we're saying the court can strike all of that information from the there were plans and in the while that was going on they were getting or i would say your honor that they were getting the warrant before the officers ever entered the house they did not need any information from this house in order to get the warrant as i was saying before we they want to introduce an evidence information they got before they got the war and after they used the key to go in house it's true judge merritt that they did phone in additional information that they saw during the initial entry but we're asking this court to strike all of that information to assume that it suppressed and then to evaluate the remainder mean an illegal entry that you can strike all of that information it's the it's the independent source doctor and so the police should not be put in a worse position than they would have if they had been gauged in this initial entry and so they should be put in in the same position that they would have been had they not engaged in the illegal activity so in other words they don't gain to benefit anything from this illegal entry assuming that it was so so the government doesn't get to rely on any of that information none of it we strike it all from the affidavit and we look at all the information that the police had before they ever entered this home and in fact the word was being sought before the officers ever entered entered the the weren't was being sought right after the searches of the other two residences the home and the retreat straight home so those those searches took place in the early morning hours of june eleventh and then the officers began preparing th search warrant for mccormick place because now they had additional evidence connecting drug trafficking to mccormick place the evidence that they found what you're saying is they have probable cause before they ever w moving probable cause evidence they already had as a result of their cars being parked out in the activities that they had surveyed that's exactly right they had probable cause that's your that's that's probable cause we have a pontiac montana we have this vehicle that's associated with these individuals williams and golly their associates are seen driving and it's also seen at the residence in fact it's this vehicle that first leads authorities to mccormick place to begin with and this this vehicle is stopped by authorities on may ninth after making a twenty four hour last trip to chicago and back and there's evidence of large scale drug trafficking inside i want to go back and ask you this was about to go before the moment so you say well we don't want to put them in a worse position but it had exactly what the law says it would deter these illegal entries and so if you if you enter illegally rather than waiting until your w that everything is excluded which is what the judge basically said well your honor i think the law says differently i think that the law says that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered that had an independent source for discovery it shouldn't be suppressed and i don't know at that there's you know the record is a little bit murky about why the officers entered when they did but but certainly you know the officers didn't think that they were doing anything wrong they in fact found in the information they were cincinnati police officers  i wouldn't see that i'd also i call the court's attention to one other really important factor and that is the searches of the residences that took place on the morning of june eleventh so you have williams and goalie and these are their homes and they were to search their homes and they find they suspected that these men were engaging in large scale drug trafficking and these searches confirmed it they found handguns they found large amounts of money what you want to put in evidence that's what they  when they first were made him with the key your honor let me clarify you know that that's so the warrant states that there were three searches that well there are three searches that happened in the war and it outlines the searches of two these two of these defendants residences were searched in the morning and there they found evidence of large scale drug trafficking this was before they ever went to the suspected stash house and so it actually provides additional and dish the very morning hours before they search staff they waited until they had this additional evidence from these defendants residences that was connected to mccormick place they had the same thing that's that's your inference that's right and because i'd add the affidavit states that these individuals were using they were just seen in mccormick place they were seen using keys and going on almost a big deal a basis in visiting for a short period of time so now a warrant and so what happens is they've already got by inference probable cause to search and get a warrant they go start getting a warrant in the meantime they learn the basically the same thing by going in without a warrant so you've got a warrant being issued and the search taking place pursuant to warrant a little later so you so the information comes from two places one legal one illegal the illegal one being when they put the key in the lock and didn't have a warrant the legal one being the inference from the other houses so you've got you've got that situation and the question is is the court going to say that this information is that that what they obtained his illegal because of the illegality of entrance with a key or legal because of the previous everybody they had about the other houses that's the problem in the we're working seeding that this information would should be stricken and we're asking the court to do what the district court didn't do and that's to look at all the other evidence in the affidavit and there's quite a bit thank you thank you post the government yes they needed to have they need a warrant to search the property and the cormick government asked you to day to say the you know ignore the entry just look at the information excise the illegal search they ask you to do that because they have to ask you to do that because they're going to get in evidence but question is it looks like to me i mean you can answer this but they've got information that comes from an illegal source that is a search with a key at the same time they have independently evidence from which you could infer the same basic feigns that they found illegally and they went ahead and they got a search warrant they were getting a search warrant to go in with that legally obtained evidence yes and then they go in and they get the drugs and the guns or whatever it is that they seize so you've got information that's legally obtain question and that is the argument that the government is making and the judgment i would i would answer that with two points one there was not enough information left if you excise information there was none with information in dish of a stash ause what the government did not point to was any source of drugs anything any any observation of drugs out of place leaving a place any sales anything of that nature and reference they don't they say that that is not the case they say that they had that house mccormick under surveillance for a pretty good time and they fry and that drugs are strong inference are being sold in the house for some time where they have under surveillance then they say we also know that the house of these people we infer that the other house is like the house we know about and just to clarify for the record judge what the police said was we saw this gentleman come in and out of the house several times we had not we did they did not specify any particular activity in terms of actual drug trafficking there's no allegation there and they've never made any comment about drug trafficking specifically coming out of that house no recovery of drugs are still there independent or grab that is correct your honor i would say that to the logical extension anywhere that either michael williams would go a multiple occasions or for that matter that pontiac montana that was referenced earlier it becomes like the  boogeyman anywhere that person goes is now marked and subject to search by probable cause for a warrant that can't be the state a lot and my second point judge is that judge barrett made that analysis the government's trying to tell you that judge barrett did not go through that fact pattern and make that analysis for himself he absolutely did he laid out a lengthy discussion of the facts and then discuss that assuming you excised this illegal information obtained line underneath what's what i've already alluded to the government and its its briefs chief brief in its reply brief has cited the cases where they want to convince  straight line a straight line from the location the property that is saw that the search warrants being sought for and drugs whether it's a vehicle left it was stopped for a traffic violation cocaine were found or a direct sale was made out of that property there's always been a law in fact this court has said that when you somebody comes other houses being arrested for an assault warrant  michigan maybe or you can us will detail about how many times they sell the cars they are so on but that's what she says i think i would just the circle back around judge that's not what's been said the government has said that there's evidence of drug trafficking and to the end of the reviewing the record and reviewing the opinion you will see that there the going in and out of the property for short periods of time the property being in the name of a noun drug dealer who had no other discernable income what one of the one of the other pieces of evidence on which the government base is characterization of evidence of drug trafficking going on from that residence well i think doug speaks to the larger issue of this case in general you're on is there any other evidence that the i would say i would say one the property was not in fact in the name of my client mr williams two there is no other evidence in support of probable cause for mccormick of the only evidence on which the government is these two people who they would being you know drug dealers going in and out of the property for short periods of time is that it if the court considers the other properties that the government has spoken of but specifically to mccormick and the issue that we're here for today that is it that these are suspected drug dealers they're going in and out of this property therefore that must be a stash house that would be our argument and nothing more and you tell us that when we ask you the specific question as an officer of the court nothing more your honor in an hour the stash houses they had du bags that's it ok now beyond that there have been there's there's been again no sales no recovered drugs no recovered money nothing otherwise that would point to it is guilt by association called property guilty it's guilt by association anywhere that michael williams is going to go for multiple on multiple trips is now subject link between we we have we got search warrants we got went out got probably cause for these other properties we found what we found there for and let's keep in mind the warrants that they got were based on stronger evidence trash pulls trash pulls where admittedly heroin was found more evidence of torture you're basically saying is that they got a warrant they looked  it with their double bag and that they had no other basis other than the inference inference from the house that they had been and that they exactly are on or it's an inference mr williams and baldwin being one of them under no circumstance at this juncture has there been any recovery of drugs that would warrant that there have been there's been smoke but i don't believe there's been any fire with regards to us a sizable quantity of drugs confiscated or we will we will acknowledge that even at retreat one of the properties earlier a small quantity of heroin was found i don't want to suggest that absolutely no drugs were found anywhere on this day what i am saying is that none of that has to do with mccormack that there haven't been any drugs anything like th argue how you think about it be construed hot back to thinner doesn't fair enough your honor i can't deny the baldwin baldwin was seen at this residence some time before and was later was later picked up with what i believe to be a small quantity of drugs again it goes to my further points of a straight line between the property and actual drugs my a belief is that baldwin did not was not apprehended directly from that property  and i think i hear what you're trying to make certain that we focus and you are cautioning us against making the leap that any time a person with a drug trafficking history leap that stats correct your honor and in new york bureau you you actually alluded to what will now to be my final point as my city my time is rapidly coming to a close the fourth amendment is a shield it is not a sword it is meant to protect whether you like the person whether you feel the person is a criminal or not it is meant to protect all of us and limit the reach of bartley's just the train of course around the mccormick have an expectation of privacy purbeck for the property when cormack absolutely had an expectation of privacy your honor he denied being an owner he denied being an owner but as evidence came out as if there's evidence came out he did for lack of a better term manage the property his uncle stayed at that residence is uncle was the one who was actually there when the police came in and his uncle acknowledged getting permission from my clients to stay at their property managed to have a landlord he managed it as i mean you are there's nothing official on paper nothing further i think i'd like to start by just noting that the district court didn't perform any kind of analysis like we're performing here this morning the district court didn't discuss any of the the other evidence in the affidavit and i'd like to touch on what judge said it is true that d n a will baldwin was an occupant of the pontiac montana when it was stopped by thirty's in may and they recovered evidence not not small quantities of drugs but evidence of large scale drug trafficking they found a drug cutting agent and they found a digital scale of well the that vehicle was seen visiting the mccormick place residence and in fact it's what led authorities there in the first place but here you don't just have this this car that is connected with the with mccormick place you also have these residences that are found with large scale drug trafficking i mean there may have been small amounts of heroin but there was a killer press in one of these homes and not only that but you have surveillance showing the occupants of these that's right you have surveillance showing the occupants of those two residences using mccormick in a manner consistent with a stash house and using a key than just a car traveling to a place in this instance we have surveillance over a large period of time showing how this organization would utilize stash houses and this was consistent with the prior uses of stash houses they were going to a residence that appeared unoccupied they were going on an almost daily basis they were using keys to enter and then leaving a short time later that's not going in visiting you know a friend for a couple hours that's not going to a place of business it's distinct and i'd also like to make a point there's no requirement that you need a direct link between you need to show evidence that drugs were trafficking trafficked out of a home in order to establish probable cause and in fact i note that this court has held that it can be inferred that a known drug dealers home contains evidence of drug trafficking and so i would suggest to the court that that inference should be even stronger here where we have known drug traffic conjunction with the investigation that's correct your honor in an extension was sought on april twenty sixth i believe that's right so they did obtain a warrant to put this tracking device on the vehicle