good you have before represent the defendant roberts and his brief he challenges the denial of this motion to suppress and also races seadrill challenges to a sentence  there's no evidence to support that it was the same judge hearing go or connecting that to or stablish ing that mr roberts was actually at village and at the night of the shooting in question i think the stronger argument here is that there's insufficient facts to determine that evidence of a crime would be discovered either at the apartment or inside the dodge durango a case like indicates that it's not enough or warrant to show that someone may have committed a crime there must be an indication i think it does and i were arguing still that we've argued in the alternative and even that this court finds that the why it was valid in the search is proper would still want to pursue challenging his statements and that those would not be admissible in any kind of trial so we do want to make that alternative argument yes or you have another question the in the q to be clear for for me the big and i was close to the government as well but on page twenty six of the government's brief that he was never told he was free to leave and he was told that he didn't have to answer their questions and he was told that he was not under arrest now those are and i opinion are two very different things he was not told that he was free to leave and said you're not under arrest you can get out of there he gets out of there any talks with her for several minutes outside the car and then he chooses to come back and so how does he not based on those facts on the stand that he's free to leave and he's not under arrest at that point well i think there's another crucial aspect of that point in the interrogation well st i would note that that didn't happen until after miranda was actually given but when his girlfriend didn't come and try to speak to him at  t he was told no and then the girlfriend say well he's not under arrest again there's no statement of free to leave but even land mr roberts got out of the car and the other officer got out with him and stood nearby and watched th i don't think there's anything in the record to support that would be necessary that it was necessary to protect especially because mr roberts had been added down and searched at the point that he was brought out of this high and he did not have anything on him and there's record your honor but still looking into whether an individual would feel free to leave again this is after miranda was eventually provided i think it was fifty seven minutes roughly into the interrogation still  because there wasn't a question as would you like to come back into the car mr roberts from the very beginning was that he acquiesce and think the place up the stairs could not testify to whether he actually agreed the characterization of us facts and what they stablish that we're going to just the nd stance is pointing out to some of the other circumstances i think it's important to go back to the beginning is han believe that's one that's i think that's not a straight encounter as the court was talking about i don't believe that's what that was after the execution of the search warrant but i think it also is important looking at the handicapping because we disagree with the idea that he w if this had been a situation where maybe it was like the next day he went down to the station and i think we have a much difficult point of view but here he's arrested at the conclusion of the questioning and taken down the police station it started at seven am that's when executed the search warrant he goes back to the station at two pm so there's not enough time there's not an intervening factors to distinguish this from the initial  criminal history who has some experience with criminal justice system knows that he could seek counsel before asking answering questions can we take that into account here so i think that comes into account with the voluntary ness aspect that come into play with the voluntariness challenge and looking at the questions that occurred right any law enforcement officers were telling him whether he was arrested and not how operative he was repeatedly ringback brought up whether and on children again brought up possibility at all charges and initially mr roberts expressed concern about whether he would lose this home because of the police presence and that execution of that search warrant and law enforcement stated depending on how the conversation went they would try to help him so those factors indicate that his well is over four and statements one voluntary if there are no further immediate questions i would reserve the remainder of my time for about a month my one him seems to me that there's evidence that the officers thought he was in custody because they had time of discussion among themselves before they let him leave he didn't seem to think he was free to leave until they had a discussion st quote i don't but it's also important to consider what else mr roberts he was told at that moment he was not under wraps but he was repeatedly told when he asked about whether he was going to be arrested and that whether he was arrested depended on it operates so looking at because this isn't an arrest now says this isn't a question of whether mr roberts was under arrest the question is whether he would feel free to leave the fact that he is told you don't have to talk to us you're not under arrest can't overdo you can't do because it's the right way to put it and i thing else that happened during this encounter he was repeatedly told that whether he's arrested depends on his operation and the interrogation was an upper i know in cases where it actually went to trial this court does reverse armless error and i don't think it's a question when it didn't go to trial whether the government thinks