mean there could be certain instances where he could not be in proximity on proxima poles proximity to the drugs such as for example if he were in southern illinois with gone collecting on  can it be it is fair the drugs are upstairs in an apartment fenced downstairs in the bar as soon as apartment is locked right there's no direct route from the bar to his  presenting it both in terms of proximity but there is no way to draw a line in the sand is in this is where you can stand and this is really you can't stand and it's this is ok and it's not but if you're saying that this person is in the same building his building which has a entrance or a stairway that goes out to his apartment somewhere he's in the bar the officers can see to that stairway that goes up to his apartment we know that he's been charged found guilty possession of heroin with intent to deliver so the jurors found that that was for so we can look to a prior criminal history and determine whether or not the statute has been fulfilled here there's not a prior criminal history that is down now and turns out you know the actual language this the action we have that he's armed and is on his person the gun is on his person and with that and in terms of the legislative intent to  to prevent potential and that's really important because i think what the defense is doing here is looking at well he didn't have enough time when they came upon him to actually use the god there are a couple of cases and they're cited in our in our breeze that talk about how it is a potential for violence not the actual intent not that he actually did use violence but the potential we have our officers come in to investigate criminal activity with  he's got the gun there's a potential for violence too so can't cover everything i guess what i would take that back to me is that we're looking at normally the legislature figures that if you're committing the crime and you're armed there is if you will  in france they're for on the facts themselves among themselves to show that a dangerous weapon is to be used in part or in conjunction with this you know this underlying felony in this case we have that because we know he's a drug dealer we know that he's obviously you know trading where people do harm themselves where he is a valuable merchandise and it's not always you know the person coming of the investigations themselves that shows on the record they have something to do with weapons from and then another there's another around the law enforcement group that becomes a now two and they were investigating him for fo on this record and with that in mind given the proximity and given the fact that he is in a trade it that often requires some sort of army and in order to protect just ash in order to protect yourself case but if you're down in southern illinois at a point where you can no longer be guarding your stash and obviously nobody in might know that you're even a drug dealer there is no and occasion that you know and that you would really have to response then you would agree there has to be some connection or here you think the evidence supports that connection in its connection with whatever we're going to believe this i do believe that there has that generally the way the on for a very different reason or it's just the facts themselves something i mean in a different continent in your you know your drugs are here and there you know or you're in an indifferent state in the or when you're charged with you know having a gun here or there is no that you would have found are obviously convictions for the defendant but i did want to ask that if for any reason your honour's decide that the government cannot stand that this case would be remitted and that's because there was on the motion to suppress it would have been the defendant's burden to show and that's you know outside one fourteen dash twelve it's the tennis burden to show that there was not probable cause times to bring it up again never argued that in fact there was an ambiguity never argued that there was some way to determine that and it would not be his burden to show that as the empowerment it's also his burden to show that where they are just nothing at all about any examination taking place here in the corner it looks like examined at the complaint it was up to the defendant as the proponent of the motion to carry that burden by but finally i mean to say that if you're honest disagreement any sense then there is a good faith exception here and it doesn't apply because certainly this is a case where there are a lot of facts and they and the way the drugs were i don't think there's any again there's no way if they would've that would have had anything to do with it that would have not been a rational conclusion there's no evidence that he was involved in any activity involved in any drug dealing i think it's interesting to the sting if i heard correctly basically admits that in the hunting example that that's not on firearms yet if my recollection is correct from the brief me on the state was very