issue that we've covered in our brief when considering whether to issue a warrant the court consider a district judge or the magistrate or in this case the state court judge considers various factors that determine whether or not there's fission evidence to establish probable cause one of those factors is whether an individual appears personally in front of the judge to testify and hear the individual did but there was not meaningful testimony she asked his name and he said it didn't do anything to establish his basis of knowledge his credibility anything that goes into the reliability of the individual who provides the information furthermore when he claimed to have firsthand knowledge of the gun it was extremely limited and in fact he claimed that it was a particular type of gun a forty five when ultimately it was a nine millimeter difference in color i believe was an issue as well his first hand knowledge was extremely limited his testimony before the issu nudge it b s p court judge was limited as much as i've ever seen just asking somebody their name is in adequate the individual who gave the information to the judge the confidential informant didn't know the address of the house had no history of giving reliable information and tips to the police department made to kill your claim that mr white retrieved the gun from the basement closet every time the purse the informant visited the house but mr white he said kept the gun for security reasons and when the informant said that he was in the house recreationally we have a disconnect between what he said and the mr white kept a gun for him where he kept it versus why he would retrieve it all the time on recreational visits to a friend's house sensually the story didn't really make much sense and of course it's an issue about the amount of time between the tip that's given in the seeking of the application and if there was a question of whether it was ten days or two months from the last time the individual team gun guns are portable they're easily moved especially if the person is keeping a gun for personal security  silly reason to think that your gun would be left in the house especially for this period of time as for the house there was no independent effort by the police to surveil the residence determine that mr white in fact lived in this place where this individual the informant you've been to the house to know so little about it even the street address it would be a basic thing somebody would be expected to know if they were in fact you live incredible and this individual didn't even know that simple detail he knew things there that would have been a basic thing they could have asked a neighbor or somebody to confirm that this was in fact mr white lived those things didn't happen either so in our view there was not sufficient evidence to establish probable cause and that should have been assessed by the district court so far as the government says the probable cause wasn't really raised the government says on page sixteen through eighteen of its briefing particular on page eighteen the probable cause was generally raised well that preserves issue on the appeal the district court should have made a probable cause determination but now i want to get to the heart of the matter and that is that frank's violation in this case there was clearly afraid violation the officer in the case the affine omitted material information he omitted the fact that the confidential source had been recently arrested and taken back i believe he said he'd been recently arrested he omitted the criminal history entirely this is a confidential informant who used an alias on five or six occasions couldn't even be truthful about his own name didn't say anything about how the individual's recent case this is fair to have it that the confidential source in this case was attempting to catch a break zone case so he had skin in the game trying to curry favor with the government with the prosecutor in order to benefit himself he had reason in motive to cause some suspicion about the story those things should have required examination by the judge had they known them that the police officer omitted that information from his affidavit which then went up to the free review to the state's attorney's office that is essential information under this court's decision and glover which of course cites brady that is information that would have steered this case in a potentially different direction and i think in absolutely different direction given the limitations on the quality and quantity of evidence that was there for probable cause if everything is based on the reliability of the informant and then you find out the informant has a criminal record that the informant is trying to give something up in order to get something in return and facts aren't disclosed to the judge that shows material or a deliberate omission or reckless omission of material information and that's the first prong of franks that's a violation of that fact it would be why i have been issued i don't think so we know that we need vigils unreliable because of their criminal history and so forth then disclosing that in from a what it resulted in a different conclusion in this case and with respect to whether or not it was reckless or deliberate obviously they knew that this individual was not a mere citizen of chicago he was  a multiple a convicted felon who had reason to give information that should cause some suspicion about the basis of his stepping forward and giving information we think that all three prongs of franks were established and then i would like to comment on this so far as the district court said and gave any deference to the state court judge who testified in the frank's proceedings the district court gave deference to the testimony of the state court judge that is a witness like the police officer or any other that is not entitled to any deference it is a do novo review that the district court should have performed it is no discretion to be given to the testimony of that individual it's not dispositive in any regard it is do novo review much like this court will conduct now and procedur there was a defect in the proceedings by giving that sort of deference to the testimony of the judge who was a witness there like any other and given all of the irregularities in her own practice as she described for what she requires for an individual i think  testimony deserves last deference than most she didn't follow her own procedures in determining the reliability of the confidential source cilla's didn't she say it's your general practice to look at the file yes and in the file contain criminal history i'm not certain that it did judge i mean i ticked off in my brief that we don't have an materials from her file to support that her general practice was to do lots of things including questioning the witness she did so if we're to look at where general practices were in apply them to this particular case acknowledging that deficiency we can also suspect that if there wasn't that criminal history in her file it would have been dated there would've been some notation on that she could have easily provided that the district court during her testimony she did it suggest to me that that general practice wasn't followed here much like her other general practice as well isn't she you're suggesting that the record just reflects you a summary and we can't draw anything from those conclusions yes i think there's nothing to support that she followed her own general practices so i think it's actually beyond what you just described judge if in her general practice was one thing the evidence is that she did not follow or general  know something is bad for my client i have it in my pocket and i don't disclose it to the court and i only do it once i'm called upon to do it and i don't think that shows like this very forthcoming if you know what i mean he brought the individual who could have been subject to as you sa greater scrutiny but it but i think you know the court sir i think he knew the practices of this particular judge in this case knew that the judge likely would not call him do we know that or sensible accusation that that's my own speculation  there's plenty of speculation i think that happened in this case but the procedures and things i am all i can say is that there was an opportunity to question and this i'm basing on the facts of the record that tender the criminal history it wasn't done to call the witness in question wasn't done those are the things that we know that should have been done and weren't i reserve the balance of my time judge did contain the informants criminal history about how do we know that and she didn't just say it's a general practice it was her general practice to have requested that information she testified that she would have followed that general practice here but more importantly the officer testified that he brought a copy of the john doe's criminal history with him he testified that even though it wasn't yet protocol for judges to request this information he did so because he wanted to be as prepared as he could for anything the judge might ask that was his testimony at the franks hearing that was not impeach on that point and therefore acting in a way that would have brought more information and was actually a part of them is certainly inconsistent with dandiya that you acted deliberately or recklessly which is a reckless omission and additionally it was not the case in the record that all was asked of them was just his name the judge testify that her general practice was to engage in a brief colloquy with these john to informants to us what their real names were to ask the basis for their firsthand knowledge to admonish them about the serious consequences that could result from giving information that would lead someone's house to be searched she testified that she followed that practice in this specific independent ground for revolt for a reversal whereas at the franks hearing and in the motions leading up to the franks hearing it was couched as simply how the the addition of this information would have impacted probable cause but the problem with raising in the context of franks is that it's again the defense burn the prove every single one of those prongs by preponderance and therefore if you didn't meet any one of these prongs then the district court didn't have to address this problem cause or even which is the third problem that's exactly what happened here the dish were properly held the fend failed to carry the burden that that second step which was the deliberate and reckless omission didn't even need to proceed to whether that omitted information when added back in would have been material to finding probably cause as a result the cannot be an independent ground of reversal that this report simply failed to address this argument when he destroyed it acted properly in failing to address his argument first place putting that aside there was sufficient probable cause to the issue that warrant i mean we look to the totality of the circumstances which is meant to be a commonsense non technical inquiry and we look to the fact that the can the f d a was sufficient detail regarding what the gun was it was details as regarding where in the house the gun was located which is with in fact the location of the gun was found it was detailed as to the reason why the defendant had that days is not at all still considering the type of contraband at issue here which is a gun possessed for personal protection and therefore would not have been one that was likely to have disappeared or of been disposed of in that very short period of time finally what the police didn't do in this case does not detract from the what actually was done in this case which was sufficient corroboration that he drove the john doe to the approximate address for the judge pointed out that house he had showed  the testimony that was given by the individual hearing is largely irrelevant what matters under franks is whether there the affidavit had a materially a material mission and it did criminal history is nowhere referenced in that affidavit easily could have been it was known to the officer the officer chose to withhold it and he did so for very apparent reasons it would have detracted from the probable cause that was scant to begin with and so the officer chose to admit that having made that regular reckless and deliberate  omission they are subject now to the consequences of the violation and again the evidence would have been insufficient in our view without the omitted information the omitted information for the detracts from it there was the wrong gun that was found showing the individual the evidence the picture of the house where it's located and saying is this the place after you run the clear check through the database and so forth the photo array which consists of a single photo that's a highly suggestive evidence doesn't do anything to corroborate