ignored not only the numerous issues raised by the defendant but most significantly here this court's well established precedent regarding the appropriate analysis that must be made in assessing the impact of fourth amendment violation on a subsequent consent to search further the district court ignored this court sound president regarding the analysis necessary for assessing the voluntariness of a consent to search as a result this court should vacate mr thompson's sentence and remand this case to the district court said that those essential findings are thompson signed a preprinted consent form that had been read to him subsequent to those violations the district court need not consider those violations this of course is contrary to  mean they've got somebody suspicious there they've for the first time saw our client mr thompson for the first time get in the car with mr bosley and drive around the black but they had they had no there's nothing wrong we've not challenge the surveillance or or any of that ok once they stopped mr thompson in his lobby things changed dramatically but the important point for this court is that we allege in very extensive detail in the district court each of these violations the court needed to consider each of them individually the court considered why doesn't this consent is life the previous argue that yes that there was coercion in the problem is we don't know as a while back he was forced to because we felt he was illegally arrested he watched a neighbor who was an uninvolved citizen be ordered by the would have forced him in his own mind to consent to such a fear of violence against him the right the consent to search was to search an apartment that he did not want them to search was perhaps concerned about their does there need to to search the apartment but we don't know that judge and here's the if i can answer the question the court initially asked me the seventh circuit and the supreme court have said if there are fourth amendment violations that have occurred the court has to evaluate whether or not the consent was tainted by those violations that's that's there's no dispute about those fact that's why you know whether he after all this has happened maybe he decides better to go along with it with them maybe they'll treat him better if he can sense correct that could be the case but that is not under such they already what par a protective sweep or to sweep and then they come back and they come up with this consent i guess what you're saying is he knew the ratings were on the wall the search is not going to be hindered for what that may be the case and he has a right not to consent what i'm saying is but he also has a right to consent but what i'm saying well he also has a right to consent if he can stand if he wants but that doesn't eliminate the district court's responsibility which it and decay did here judge shader never considered never evaluated the fourth amendment violations that we maintained occurred here where he must i do that he knows there's going to be a search they can get a warrant very easily so he figures well play ball with them now may get slightly better treatment for course you do see the the then and this is a critical fact they seized his keys which allowed them to operate the elevators allowed them to unlock is door because he did not tell them where he lived and they did not know where he lived there was then upon the seizure of the keys he was no longer free no reasonable person had had his car keys his house keys he was no longer free to leave so he was affectively under arrest and he'd start the elevator he did everything once they got the key then they went and tried one door didn't work and i think that you well they went to one door and ordered a guy out who had nothing to do it's a gun point and you can search his apartment with proceed that's right because that's what the debts but the president has always held that the district court has to consider those violations and then assess whether or not those if those violations occurred as we believe they did did they then taint the consent the consent is really the back end of the analysis here judge shrader never ever considered any of those things he jumped right to the consent which is skipping steps and and all we're asking is to toots to send this back to ask the district court to do the work that it should have done the first time around i understand i've got to read lighted i' may please the court the name is chris president of present united states councils just stated that the district court quote ignored voluntariness what the district court said could not be more clear quote there is not the slightest question that thompson's consent was knowing as well as voluntary and is not ignoring voluntariness the court went further saying on the key issue of whether his oral and written consent to search his residence was both knowing and voluntary an affirmative answer is clearly call for the district court had a full day suppression hearing on this matter heard all of these different facts in different scenarios at post trial post here in brief he reviewed all of that and then issued its order in this case it h of these arguments and what's important for this for the court to note here is it completely rejected the defendant's versions of events and once you do that there's no constitutional violations to for the court to consider and the court was clear not to put too fine a point on it thompson's version of events is not at all believable the district court made clear he doesn't believe what the diff with the fence version of events is so there's no constitutional violations for the district court to an it looked at the version of events through special agent reynolds's testimony which doesn't present any constitutional issues was time goes on you know after he's identified there's a guy to get out of  there's pretty much anyone asking for directions so he's a who's in and now they're watching him and that's when they encounter correct now i don't know what took all day but whatever it was the parent really discussed all these things and it does seem that once he gave the consent he thought there may be something in it for him to be cooperative and there was because as i understand it they didn't arrest him for some period of time that's correct and he did why and they were calling him he was cooperating doing two other things thinking maybe not get off the hook or maybe have a better chance to get something less and the consent can be for a lot of reasons that's correct i guess which would you say correct violation for the court to address but by saying i don't believe anything that mr thompson testified to there's nothing for the court to address that because the court followed the testimony of eight reynolds which is i presented him with a form that sat you have the right to refuse consent will you can see that and he signed it and then cooperated in their search and then they search really just a couple of quick points mr prentice talked about the judge making a finding that there was knowing voluntariness it's important to recognize that there was no analysis attached to that it was  statement it was as if he showed his answer when my teachers the nuns used to yell at me when i did mass show your work judge didn't show his work here so how he reached that conclusion we don't know but more importantly again that's the tail end of this entire analysis there were all of these extensively argued fourth amendment violations th case law the president both from the supreme court in this court have said a court is has to consider in assessing whether or not a consent has been tainted to the district court did none that not one bit and finally what i guess i'd like to say is there's a bit of a a red herring by the government here on this credibility issue first of all most of the facts were not in dispute there were some divergence on some issues we are not asking this court to to to consider the district court's credibility findings this is not about credibility this is about the fact that the district court did not do the analysis that it's required to do so we're not asking the court and the court doesn't need to consider whether or not judge the district court on what would be an example of the analysis that you think the judge well i think what it what my view is is he should have could we say explicitly argue to each of those five and those five violations that occurred we feel that he should have answered each of those and then said why those violations either were not violations or even if they were violations they no longer tainted the consent that's what we're saying he should have he should have ruled he didn't do any of that the the opinion is is entirely blank on that  he quite literally jumped to the consent and did not respond to our arguments and so for those who went to how would the judge decide whether the to the signing of the consent whether there are words that mean how soon it was how soon after what how soon after the the fourth amendment violation the consent was signed on the assumption correct and that's a violation that we think the judge needed to consider and maybe he comes out against us judge but we don't you know and i didn't even ask for them back in try to get him back or do they didn't if the seizing the keys in and of themselves is a because there was because they had it occurred i would say any fair reading of the text that occurred within ten to fifteen minutes of this illegal seizure and the the there were no intervening circumstances what the district court was thinking because the district court didn't answer this court would be in a much better circumstance of evaluating that had the district court followed the analysis that this court has always said it should follow we had we laid out in great detail why we thought each of those violations were legitimate violations and we also laid out specific are three factors to determine whether there's a taint and she supposed to do that on the basis of testimony on all the evidence in front of her and on all the evidence in front of him that's correct but he's not there it was there testimony yes but it was there was probably three hours of testimony they were fighting home by agent reynolds another agent whose name eludes me now by my client and by my that that portion of the testimony it with the reason he signed it was because according to his testimony they had already found the drugs and they said we won't arrest you there's a huge difference is events that's his reason for consenting in the judge he said believe that but but that's fine a judge can make it after the judge makes the finding about the fourth amendment violations and the taint the clause the the the supreme court  testified that it has to fight about the circumstances of his signing the consent which was different from the testimony of of the agents because even i he he did testify that way but joe if the judge didn't believe because i'm trying to answer that because even if the judge determined there was voluntary consent the law is clear that the judge also has to because essentially the court is saying whether it's voluntary consent it's no longer meaningfully constitutionally voluntary if others that means it means exactly what he if he if he knowing everything knowing the risks about possible benefits or what of consenting decides to consent that's voluntary it's you said may have been voluntary i'm saying and so what does it mean could render it involuntary but if it was voluntary i don't get it we don't roll of the taint we don't consider the consent that he filed and signed as voluntary because it was tainted already discovered now he's got no choice or i'm going to see to get the best deal i can so i'm going to sign that george said didn't believe that he had found the contraband before they signed it and i think that's the pivotal thing and why he could