they asked me but i declined number one the evidence was seized and the evidence seized was a product of an illegal entry into carter's home and number two the search should have never been permitted in the first place because the search warrant was bare bones frankly requests that this court affirmed the trial court suppression of the evidence not just his mcdade to answer your question and the pipe are you referring they referred to a pipe that was found in the chair but then discuss later the warrant here was deficient but the police were searching mr carter's house because of the war and they did this search very thoroughly they went through the company they went through the cabinets they went through everything they concluded the s they removed mr carter's handcuffs and as they were on their way out of the house richard murray from the bass man said i got to talk to you i got to talk to you they exit the home and then at that point mr murray became that part was accessible to the main for the house the up stairs or the house was not except it's as a ball i am the one other than that tenant which is gentile or so this they are in mr carter's can't stand i believe when mr procedure what event for the police to try to obtain a new search warrant based on this new probable cause for concern but in this i don't there wasn't evidence this you know the state argued that under inevitable discovery that this was ok but it's not the purpose of these missionary rule is to preclude courts from admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment and to deter police misconduct as it prevent them from doing what they did in this case that inevitable discovery cannot be used to excuse a warrantless entry into cannot just enter the home because they think that they have probable cause and they plan to get a warrant the chief evil against which the fourth amendment is direct it is the physical injury of the home and w search as cannot be present are more of the searches cannot be undertake cannot be undertaken because the police plan to do it the right way but then don't especially here are the w was not a guarantee even if they had said ok we're going to exit the house we're going to go to a magistrate and get a warrant this is all based on the words of a snitch who was never charged with this crime you know they let him off for cooperating so he's obviously angry that he's being arrested any rolls over so whether it's not even a guarantee that the court here that it that a court would have granted search warrant based on the discovery doctrine under the circumstances of mr caruthers case what allowed things of evidence to be admitted merely because the police could have chosen to act differently and potentially have seen the evidence by legal means but they did home and search of this house was illegal this honorable court action affirmed the trial court suppression of the evidence we also have an alternative grounds that he had judges an initial finding that the search warrant to the residence was correct and officer should have never been permitted to search the home the search warrant mostly pertaining to the up stairs tenet jeffrey tyler officers had observed mr tyler drugs there had been a controlled by within the past fourteen days and they had you know numerous in surveillance on jeffrey tyler and his drugs he was the up serious time and the houses he needed a separate key to get up sears but mr carter and mr tyler were seen together because they were reasonably friendly and they had at least on my own more than a relationship now the judge in this case originally role that the search warrant was very bones because there was nothing tying mr carter to the suspected drug activity this ruling was correct now the judge did change his mind when he learned that he had driven and that mr carter had driven mr tyler from the house to the place of the drug buy and then he felt that this that it was proper that this was that proper for the search warrant to apply to mr carter's residence but distance away to do this right rights transaction there's just no evidence that he was involved in it in any way and any other information in the affidavit about mr carter was that oh a source says  mr carter is selling is involved with this too but there was no basis of knowledge regarding this test and there's also no in horror reference at all in relation to mr carter whereas with mr tyler there was much more information the complaint here was so bare bones that it was either reasonable for the police to believe that there was probable cause and thus the good faith exception to the exclusion or old cannot apply in this case and you are you hearing in that the application by itself was enough to establish probable cause you got to be supplied by the office