provide the defendant with a copy of a warrant during the search for three reasons the district where any one of the three reasons independently sufficient power versatile of the district court's decision here first regardless of whether there is a constitutional violation suppression the exclusionary rule is not the remedy for such a violation as the supreme court demonstrated last term and hudson secondly there is no constitutional right to a probation or defendant could not have reasonably expected officers would obtain a warrant he therefore could not reasonably expected that he would receive a copy of the warrant during the search and that's true irrespective of the knowledge of the officers that he's on probation quite as clear there going to be questions about how much time is too much and there danger issues associated in hearts and that you would necessarily have present here but the important point is what the supreme court in indicated in rockets which is you always have  hudson the turn effect is minimal and the supreme court indicated to hudson that you needed to look at the the kind of value of deterrence and there the court would indicated that well you wouldn't intentionally violate the knocking around for all because it's not going to gain evidence the supreme court rejected this court's precedent that there is a police the police rationale for providing a copy of the warrant or in the search the court indicated instead that the purpose of the warrant requirement is to provide notice recognize during the hearing he deny the suppression rulings of intel post trial because at that time he looked at the state of ninth circuit precedent and sad that this was a state search rule forty one did not apply and there was no constitutional right but the courts noted though this had decided in martina's garcia that there was a constitutional right and apply the state's searches and the court also looked at the night circuits decision this court's decision and grubs which indicated that the kind of the police the police rationale flowed from the fourth amendment and not rule forty one in the court  two cases together and said there is a constitutional crime and we didn't in our brief disagree with that and i think it was clear at that point in time that there was a constitutional right when you read that to places together to provide the warrant what we noted in our  after the briefing was filed grabs came out and grabs rejected that precedent and so i think it's no fault of the district court here the district court waiting considered the precedent as it evolved that if it's just after the district court issues decision the president changed again and then hudson on top of can expect to get a warrant and he can't respect receive a copy of that we don't do this is like standing principle standing principles like this issue that we've addressed look at the reasonable expectation of privacy of an individual and they are limited in time to the search itself and they focus on what the actual expectations of privacy of the individual is if you take for example a case like this out of the carter was the supreme court case in which you had an officer looking in the lines of a apartments the officer at the time doesn't know anything about the people that  sees inside the apartment but looking at whether there were standing of those people inside the contest to search the court looked at the after the fact evidence was to which was there was a it was a commercial purpose which was this cocaine operation there there was short term duration and  they had no prior connection to this residence and said well no standing in the court made clear that it was the after the fact information that they were relying on because of the court to specifically point out that it was later the court they officers found out this information there any case in point that point not that i'm aware of i mean i think the we specifically noted the previous case from the first circuit which laid out the idea that make clear that you didn't have to know in that circumstance of that was more of an abandonment not exactly the that's true although i think this court's decision right now be voc it would prevent officers from doing a specialist search without knowledge of the probation condition but as we noted the issue of suspicion is inherently tied to what the officers now i mean usually when you're focusing on whether  of privacy and he just doesn't know what the officer knows here if the asa officer subjectively believe that if it was on probation they didn't say anything during the search and conducted the search the same way there's no reason the defendant's expectation of privacy would be different because the officer had that subjective the drugs were found in the bathroom and money was found in the kitchen and the bedroom and the living room was centrally located to those items and in fact located between the front door in those places and it was also the room that if it was in at the time of his arrest i mean he had the gun the in the room that he was president that divided the front door from those areas as far as strategic location the jury could permissibly conclude this was strategically located here both again this is the kind of an ideal place to have it between the front door and   unloaded rather than where it was in the living room and the drugs were in the kitchen rather than where they were in the bathroom and that circumstance you have a much more difficult case because you could really only say approximate because it's a small apartment that it's not near where the drugs are you wouldn't pass by the gun to get to the drugs it's not very it's not a very strategic location to have the gun if you're defending the drugs in that circumstance the problem for a defendant here is that this is a strategic location the jury was permitted to make that finding because  found in the bedroom and the drugs were in the garage which were ten to fifteen feet away and of course they're noted while you may want to have the drop of the gun in the room that you're in at the time in fact the court said in that circumstance quote in addition the determination the gun was in the room the kind it was in at the time and it was a strategic room to have the gun in because it separated the front door from or he kept his drugs and cash and was also specifically were was in that room was on the way that he had to go to to get to  dealing drugs or stored drugs in his motel room which here there is evidence that if it was dealing drugs out of his apartment and he stores drugs in his apartment and realized there was no evidence that kind of kept cash in his apartment he had cash on himself they didn't have the gun on himself and the only thing that was found there were drug conspiracy documents which there was no indication that of the thing that they would want to protect whereas here you had the guns you have the drugs and you have the cash which to find it would want to protect and you had it's not just proximity the strategic location from which the jury can it reasonable to do so and that the remedy for failing to do so is suppression the government has argued that the recent supreme court cases undermine night circuit precedent but your honor they doubt each of them that the supreme court cases can be distinguished in even four ways not technically starting with the husband case which is where the government started with regarding the exclusionary rule the government argues that to serve a warrant is not a but for cause of the user of the evidence but the government's argument proves too much the government could argue similarly in a case where police officers have but they didn't the fact that they didn't show him the warrant isn't about four cars are those other cases different though because the question is is a work required here that we don't even need to have that russell question may have a court as well as the supreme court has to have noticed that there weren't a quorum it isn't just can you get a warrant the warrant serves numerous purposes yes it does interposed a neutral magistrate between the officer and the evidence but it serves two other purposes the second purpose is to advise the officers with the limit of their authority is and that's a particularly that leaves them at a minimum that's particularly requirement which we also don't  present in this case for discussion that's the second function and the third function which not only this court but the supreme court has repeatedly mentioned is the notice and assurance of parliament the work also serves the purpose of giving the occupant of the premises if he happens to be present sometimes they're not and still work in those cases you would have to go out and find the occupant to say hey i'm about to serve a warrant on your house but if the occupant is present the w has embraced that requirement the notice and assurance requirement and it has adopted procedures to meet that requirement and one of the procedures is that the warrant be served it doesn't necessarily have to be served at the beginning necessarily when the middle but it needs to be served at some point nothing in the supreme court's cases have overruled that requirement the government submit that rocked over was that requirement that your honor i for at least three reasons first the discussion at the very end of bribes as to whether a warrant needs to be served at the out excuse me outset of the search is dicta in that case was condition precedent for the search for it needs to be on the warrant itself the warrant was served on the defense on the person who was at the premises in that case the defendant so the court never needed to reach the issue as to and that's not what this i just want to ask you about this statement in grubb's it says the absence of a constitutional requirement that the warrant be exhibited at the outset of the search or indeed until the search has ended is evidence that the at all and as the concurring justices wrote in grubb's the supreme court has not reached the question as to whether eight occupants of premises me demand to see the warrant and whether they have a right and i believe it's in the declaration i guess what we don't have is we don't have a factual determination on the line one way or the other is accurate we just we have a we have the information or he alluded to it but the district court didn't  go there get reached there the district court didn't believe that it needed to reach that issue so another way to resolve the case if the court found that dispositive would be trained down to the district court for a factual determination that's were in dispute mr hector  declared that he said do you have a warrant and they gave him the noticed and he said is that it and the opposite is said yes sir if you look at the officers took chronological photos of their shirts and if you look at their chronological photos it tends to support that chain of events because the notice of the search warrant in a supplemental expert dr paul record one zero three eight the notice and they went back into the house he showed them the money and then he said do you have a warrant you're something and they said they gave him the notice and he said is that it and they said yes and that apparently is when they took the photograph of the notice and assurance requirement it only criticizes this idea that the warrant served a so called policing or monitoring function it said in fact quote it quote itself in chadwick as to the notice and assurance requirement and then it says well nice circuit argued further that the word serve a policing function and that is the function that grabs criticized it did not criticize the notice and assurance function it didn't say anything about a case like this where the defendant was present he was completely compliant he posed absolutely no risk there was no reason for the officers not to serve the warrant on him and yet they chose not to just to be clear than the rule that would have to come out of this to satisfy your view would be that even if you serve a notice of a warrant that it still would be unconstitutional not to use for the warrant and it contents your honor this court has already held that at least twice there's been a lot of cases about this particular issue but the first one that i would say squarely held that was mcgregor well i guess the question is whether privacy and yet they still held that that petitioner in that case because it was such a nine hundred eighty three action of plaintiffs had standing to assert the violation so i don't think that there's really any way to distinguish the two shibata the police officers in that case also tried to rely on c n n cases and this court specifically said those standing cases are totally irrelevant because i'm standing cases are about whether somebody has a reasonable expectation of factor was on probation so he could be required to expect that somebody aware of the problem of his probation conditions to come and search him so an officer could say i know you're on probation and i'm doing a probation search that would be legal like i can ask you could say i have a warrant and here is a copy of the warrant i think the government i hope that the government understands that under ronald i needed to get a warrant because they certainly didn't know he was on probation so they can get just in a war search what morano said and what judge president very clearly said in this case is the officers need to both know the purposes of their search and that's the purpose of this or they cannot say we have a warrant to search you but we're not going to give it to you and then later retroactively justify that value by saying it turns out we didn't need to give it to you because you were on probation anyway there's nothing in miranda that stands for that proposition and the government seems actually hard pressed to find anything in the read o that stands for that proposition so instead in their brief they say well it was different in miranda because that that person wasn't subject to the specialist searches neither his parole condition nor knight said that he was such a special but that distinction that the government argued in the brief totally ignored the fact that this court in deciding marino specifically said we're assuming for the sake of argument that mr moran i had no  proximate to both the drugs and possibly the defendant and the drug deal matter where it but in reality in this case the gun was not proximate to any of the locations proximate to the front door would have been at the front door proximate to the drugs would have been with the drugs the gun was underneath a futon in the living now the government's actually file and again on appeal talks often about how that is the ideal location for a gun because a guy and could be accessible and strategically located in case a drug deal goes down or the fact in this case not the inferences not the things that jurors could  but the fact of the case were that a drug deal occurred and that the informant in the drug deal advised that the drug dealer heard through the front gate through the front screen door if you look at the exhibits in this case clearly if something is this drug deal we're going our ryrie got go sour go south whatever terms you choose to use there is no way that i can but it's located down the hall not a very long hop down the hall and on the other side actually had to pass by the characters completely irrelevant in this case the detectives who were monitoring the can the confidential informant specifically asked the confidential informant if there were guns involved did you see  was the m was the dealer armed we don't know the answer to that question but we can assume that the answer to that question had been yes that would have come into evidence at trial but it did not so the only way this firearm could have you'd never have the in further and assume if it were within your he and reach for example and we have places that say otherwise and actually i looked at all the cases that the government has cited and each one of them cans reach of the defendant at the time that he was he was on or it was located with the drugs so and the reason for that is because that to be in front of it it doesn't need to be in furtherance of the drug deal but he can also furtherance of the possession of the drugs and for it to be in furtherance of possession of the drugs the case is generally how they need to be located in the same location there's a case in which they're both in a crawl space there's a case in which they're both in a closet space there are numerous cases where they're both in the same exact location but none of the cases cited by the government or by the district court below involve the gun one place totally inherently it was a question of whether you could cure that by providing relevant documents later so it was a question in those cases as to the inability of the war itself it's not what's at issue here there is a particular warrant there's no challenge to the warrant itself the question is soley one of execution o