in connection with the in the district court as to wasn't the argument not that the statements were voluntary but that mr bradley was not in custody and alternatively if he was in custody then the there was probable cause to go forward that wasn't the initial your honor that was that the initial response that the government presented based soley on what defense had submitted in their initial brief so what happened was the fence solved their motion in brief the government responded then we well ok when you came back did you specifically say to the district court that the statements were pretty miranda statements were voluntary and then did you cite a pain or to summa i never cited pain or  they're right on point but they are right on point your honor but that wasn't the issue that was before the court was before the court and what was asked for by the fence was for the physical evidence to be suppressed because the in custody i think i did argue that your honor because the government did not believe that he was in custody but that would have resolved any of the issues with regard to whether or not the statements were involuntary but the argument you made was presented with the correct case law on pages one hundred and seventy four of the appendix where defense is putting forth their argument they state what further more involuntary statement taken from and used with out us in front of the district to put it fair you have to put it fairly in front of the district court where did you in the court in the district court fairly put the argument of voluntariness and say to the court right yes your honor but on page thirty two of the appendix the the court specifically cites do else baby i'm going statement that are otherwise voluntary in the beginning of the th amendment  no your honor i'm sorry my position is that this the court found that the premer and the statements were no deal therefore they should be suppressed themselves however they were not involuntary it found that the post it didn't talk about bradley would it and it very precise it says we find bradley was in custody and subject to interrogation and that's the finding it's true thanks tab but it doesn't say and we we find that the statements were voluntary it says in custody and interrogation done a lot where where do you where any where do you get with who  finding with respect to the premier and state well your honor in again it's my position that if you take the entire opinion as a whole that the way that the court broke it down but having said that that even if you would find that inevitable discovery doctrine is a th amendment concept and really doesn't apply to evidence seized as a result of involuntary statements under the th amendment we haven't found any cases where  it has been applied in such a situation i thought nd of all i thought the inevitable discovery rule was operative regardless of whether the police had done what they should have or should have but the whole point of the inevitable discovery doctrine was well they may have done the wrong thing but it doesn't matter because if because if they had done everything exactly like they should have and the defendant had said nothing they still would have found this evidence it still would have come to light then that would be inevitable discovery will tells us yes it does but again that's it then and in this context in this context the only evidence in this case about inevitable discovery is what trooper johnson says and he says pretty plainly once i saw this man had a suspended license i was not to let him drive off in that car he just couldn't do it and so i'm in the middle of the night and inclement weather on the side of a road three miles three hours away from where this car was rented he's not going anyplace things getting towed for sure and once it's towed there has to be an inventory search if that's the only evidence and you can correct me if i'm wrong about that why is this absolutely a case where they were going to find those drugs right there in the trunk as soon as they popped well again all reiterate that  well that's not credibility that you saying that maybe there can be something else but i don't see anything in that and judge jones civilian that says that johnson was not being credible not even anything like i don't believe you he did not say anything explicitly along those lines but i think it's pretty clear a fair reading of the opinion district court takes trooper johnson to task on a number of points he may do that but he never says he never says i find your testimony credible so for this for purposes of our discussion it's probably helpful if you lay that aside and deal with what he did say the court did say i think this was that there would be an inventory search would be speculative and yes actually address that in your briefing but my question to you is what is speculative about a trooper saying once we tell the car it has to be inventory searched what's what is it in that that is speculative well what the specter the was the towing of the car there was no basis they call up the renter to come pick it up or they call the rental agency to tell the president he was three hours away it was the middle of the night in february with snow on the ground i mean i don't i'm trying to deal with the facts as they exist in the record and i'm trying to cope with the assertion that this is speculative you've got to drive with suspended license why wouldn't what speculative about saying the cop is going to get this thing towed well some of the fan considerations would apply in terms of the weather and two am when we don't know what shift is available we don't know that there's a tow truck available  here are the police protocols we've asked them force and they provided them to us and those police protocols for a suspended license do were do not call for a towing and they do or do not want to stowed provide for an inventory search of the pipe that was done here and other words there may be an inventory search ok there were keys there is a cigarette lighter etc did it go into the trunk do they look very closely or is it for suspended license they just said ok we're going to police things we're going to put him in a bag when he went and when he gets out of here we'll give him is a bag with his valuables i don't know anything about that and yet there was no the only thing we have that i can see is the testimony of cooper johnson well it's certainly the government's responsibility if they were introducing inevitable discovery doctrine that they sort of come forward with impounded when it's operated by a non life so to say this was all speculative ignores not only the testimony as offered but the legal requirements that would have required the officers to a way the trooper said he would act so how do you get how do we how can we affirm the district court's conclusion on inevitable discovery here when the testimony shows it's not so it doesn't support an issue of speculative ness and that's both by his testimony as well as the legal landscape under which he was operating well speculative whatever but it's the only testimony we've got so far recollection is that johnson's testimony was talking about what he thought he would do not i don't think the few court ignored it i think again i think a fair reading of the district court's entire at pinion is that he did not find super johnson credible a if i could just mention a few things on that if i if i'm speculating as to what the philadelphia eagles might do this fall that doesn't mean i'm not credible which just means i'm speculating there's nothing in that opinion that said that the trooper johnson was temporarily we're not there we're we're now back we're at the place where the toing took is but the car is towed and there is to be some type of inventory and the question is your honor i mean that trooper johnson would have inspected it for valuables and i think if you look at the m v a are it soon as he pops up in that trunk with things seconds he's pulling the drugs out that doesn't work there are yes and tell me what do they require to do that to the extent you know and again your honor i what i'm telling you is going off of memory from i believe a mr ford it is to protect the police right to make sure nobody can come back and so used only stuff so they look in any place where people logically put things like the glove compartment or the trunk were you know they don't pick that door panels off for things like that but they look where people naturally store things do they not but that's correct your honor and again in this case it was sitting right in the trunk it was it was found very quickly by trooper  circumstance here where the district court was profoundly trouble with the way this went down and watching that dash cam video helps one understand why there was that was troubling but doesn't answer the question by the inevitable discovery except that you think you've already noted drivers and the community caretaking function which is also recognize that their pennsylvania law would have demonstrated that this was in fact that located what should we do about the fact that those legal principles w law so therefore i mean this is still something to this court can consider and so would you say that that statute and the community caretaking doctrine of directed recognized the pennsylvania case law would further corroborate a lot of speculative notes or at least the  counsel and will take this matter under advisement and appreciate your being with us the audio today