reason to believe as agent about it specified at the hearing that anything related to the bank robbery the commission of the bank robbery would be found in the search and he reiterated that position on a number of occasions the record is replete with those references  the reasons which he set forth for that were the passage of time between the events in question that happened years ago as a matter of fact that was one of the interrogation techniques he used as an aside i'm referring to the bank robbery issue as an old rather i don't i don't mind what he responds to it but at some point i'd like you to give us your view on the consent is sure the suggestion has been made that as a condition of parole there was three involuntary consent him and that there very well may have been probable cause to arrest him even though i was precluded from going into that area in the district court however probable cause to arrest is not probable cause t come in today and give us a urine sample and you don't know what's going to be sense that you don't know what the phone call tomorrow morning is going to say the night before you're going to supposedly common sense and there was a parole surge at the there was no serious claim that it was related to his parole supervision it was really at authorized by the probation officer as a pretext so that he could be searched for a crime it was suspected and we said we held that opinion by judge and me so that was fine under a case that the supreme court had decided night it's because knights emphasized the public in france and subjecting parolees to a fairly general loss of liberty and privacy in order to prevent the most complex on that way is often a tough choice between sign the contract and accepting a worse consequence or what you think is a was a consequence and happens and life and in transcend which is obtained at the point of the sword so to speak is no concern at all so let me ask you about something related to consent but but not quite the same thing and that's expectation of privacy my thought is that the parolee has no reasonable expectation of privacy for several reasons one is the form that it's fine technology is that the start and that's how it relates to he can't be free until he's finished that period of close supervision in the outside world and third as the man so eloquently put it as your client put it under oath i just you know just took it for granted that you know i'm on parole that i don't have no rights at all it seems like there's no reasonable expectation of privacy here it's much as though he were saying that somebody of the server the overcoat he was wearing on market street think creation of a new level of suspicion somewhere other than reasonable suspicion or probable cause which had been endorsed by the supreme court in the supreme court specifically and hernandez versus montoya the border search kind what the law in california as i understand the legislature passed something but your argument is that supervision is impossible without that statute and other states don't have that statute and do not appear to have in their judgment at least lost the ability to supervise  to the district court to hold a traditional to send hearing to see if it was a voluntary relinquish would have any right that he might have had i think that you can look at the statute and you can look at the parolee population to make a determination as to the whole losing immediately credits on a day for day basis that might release you earlier from custody the credits actually released early and so you start you've earned credits yet you don't sign every day you don't sign you lose your credit you stay in prison probation and cases involving parole have been cited interchangeably and now in practice probation is usually a lenient sentence given to somebody whose conduct and record are not fair enough to justify a prison term for ole you can't get parole unless you do something bad enough you go to prison first yes and i'm wondering whether some distinction either has been drawn or to be drawn in the case  you do need to have reasonable suspicion under bergner that's wrong we can't have that kind of system when it is the more culpable they weren't trying to make it in terms of the supervision or the structure or who was responsible they were only trying to draw a parity between because i'm looking at a guy with a history of committing crimes in beach with leave his various prison we know that there is no irreducible level of suspicion required that has to be applied to a whole california make the choice less real the other point that i really would like to emphasize is that california's race case is opposed to the second and the california rance case had this case to and that i continually find surprising in california case this is just how soon people with really serious crimes and very bad records get out of prison i don't know what they're doing on the street in alaska they get locked up for much longer time what i'm wondering is whether they fairly restrictive parole conditions are part of a package of fairly lenient imprisonment s california whether the california scheme it is to let the matter earlier than alaska or perhaps many other states but subject them to a much more rigorous regime should first supervision rehabilitation or prove they just get out because they're time's up and then they're released to the public in the public i'm david kernell representing the united states in this case and obviously we will concur and all of the remarks at the state attorney general made concerning the viability of the search in this case  and its most basic level the united states comes before this court to resolve the question as to whether or not evidence which is used during war or as obtained as a result of one of these parole searches you still prevail that would that would be correct yes under the under the way the the case was presented both in the district court and on appeal we did that we did the r u attenuation of the questions from affirms the garcia cruz holding which you previously and had made that statement without really giving a reason for it except to except to say that we're going to follow california law in that respect which goes back to  basically decided that its interpretation of certain supreme court cases was superior to that of the california supreme court and so it's up to this in bank animal to decide whether or not say that the he was court that the guns were drawn one detective and i might say that this search was primarily done by overwhelmingly done by state officers and there was a best san diego police department and the use of guns so this is more of a prophylactic thing than anything else the gun was holstered they sat down for thirty minutes to talk to this individual they call and you don't have to go down with this you don't want to would you feel more comfortable talking here instead of in this this crude or parents it's to make sure that illegal persons do not enter in violation of the immigration laws and it also happens to have a law enforcement component to it all as well that so you have the you have the dual purpose that goes on and those searches those searches are are conducted for a special need of the united states government and the person entering the united states has an extremely low expectation of priva was very happy in prison and i had a good relationship with my sally and you know i didn't like the scenery but they said they would break my legs if i wouldn't sign and that's what they told me and so i signed and to the airport i know i'm going to have to go through a metal detector if i want to get out here point i may think in my heart of hearts of that terrible violation of the fourth amendment but we have clearly said that my expectation of privacy is not one that's awfully strong i mean i go to the airport i know that i'll lose my penknife or five forgot to take it out of my pocket and i know that we're out of my rockets and if i have anything that would that i prefer to be private in there it won't be and i