conduct a criminal history check of the victim and if they're going to try and seek a search warrant based on probable cause that they must set forth in the affidavit for probable cause the criminal history of the victim who is the source of can't the officers preclude based on the corroboration from their investigation of the crime scene that the report by the victim is worthy of what we because they saw the red marks on her they found a metal briefcase that matches the description of the victim provided in under illinois versus gates we can now lay a heavier emphasis on the first prong and the statements of its victim about circumstances surrounding the sexual assault which lead the police to a different crime but i go back to the question i asked you at the beginning of your argument and that is that transformed the victim now into  of the circumstances and with respect to the omission of the victims i don't want to call it criminal history exactly but allegations of criminal conduct involving fraud  should have been included in the affidavit as a crack matter of practice not necessarily as a matter of law it is important of course for a magistrate judges to know as much as they can about people who get information about crimes but the fact determinations of the victim's credibility with respect to the gun without any regard to the information that she gave about the rape and the sexual you know physical assault which counsel readily acknowledges that there was probable cause the fact of the sexual and physical assault on the one hand from the likelihood that there will be a gun on the other hand i would like to touch briefly on the question of whether the gun played any role in the sexual assault and i mention it only because i mr combiner and i stress is that she never said that the gun was was part of the sexual assault and that is true she never actually said that but her written statement if the court read it closely does not say the opposite either it does not say that the gun had nothing to do with it and there are such trauma as you point out it's just a common sense every day experience a conclusion that if she knew there was a gun and have replaced that she would probably be more likely to submit to the sexual assault th she might have otherwise and so the gun and the sexual assault has also while we cannot say they are necessarily intimately related or certainly connected so with respect  to the victim's credibility it would have been desirable to include evidence of her involvement in the fraud scheme it was not necessary to do so and when we assess the victim's credibility in this case i think it's important to to and if they found that she would be alive they could also have them searched the hotel room the premises were united slothing on and they would have found her to be a liar which would not have advanced her case on the sexual and physical assault in fact  more reasonable response would be simply that she was probably concerned about the police opening the case and she wanted them to know that he had a gun but we have to also consider her relationship with him unlike the cases cited by defense they were on good terms when they got to that motel room the night before and it was only at the last minute that things went bad when the defendant became agitated and assaulted her up to that point she had no reason at all to to dislike him or to set him up for the framing or to as you say embellish or gild the lily here she had no no motive to do that until the offense there was abun evidence of that sexual and physical assault she didn't need to gild the lily and in fact if she had thought process drug through and done a risk benefit analysis she could have thought if i live to the police about this gun and to me and reading the testimony of detective moore as to whether or not he decided to seek a warrant before the patrol officers reports were transcribed so did he know at the did not know when he decided to seek the lord that the car search had been conducted or that anything had been found ultimately as he was when he started writing the war he had before him the written reports which included reference to the car search and the fruits of that search but the important question is what prompted him to get the warrant and i think that is the important question the answer is it was the report of officer sweeney who was relating  victim witness had said was that there was a gun in the briefcase he did not know when he made that crucial decision at that point in time that there had been a search of the car and the relevant evidence had been found and so the answer to th whether it played any role in the judge's decision to grant the war and obviously we can't know that that we didn't know the judge's mind but clearly it would seem that there is sufficient evidence on the motion to suppress that he took out the language regarding improper conduct so you're not going to call the judge as a witness just say now what were you thinking when you approve this search warrant you're go information and relying on the totality of circumstances to find probable cause in any of that yes and i think and i think that's absolutely correct and i think further that's right in response to your question  people the most important question is whether that accept that exercise information made a difference in the judge's determination probable cause and in that particular judge's mind we may never know but the  standard of review before this court has been over and the question of whether there that omission was material to the decision the determination of probable cause and on the facts in this record this court can and should take that finding i think the court does not have to remain on the record where the record is clear enough and where all the facts are brought out in the record this court can make that decision to know so that so you work i'm looking specifically at some language  agents might not have applied for a search warrant if they had not made their what was unlawful warrantless search at the back of the house and incorporated its fruits in the application for a warrant we are not in a position to determine what they important they illegally obtained evidence from the car which is obviously