home pursuant to a search warrant that search warrant has to be discussed or described the home with particularity it isn't so so so we've got the facial ambiguity or the error in the warrant in the underlying affidavit but on the other hand we've got the officers pearson and the neko saying that the c i hit pointed out the apartment on the west side building we've got the leads inquiry revealing the tracy off the hook but for example you stayed at the west side it wasn't stated in the search warrant and the application for a search warrant in illinois complaint for a search warrant that was the website all it says that he pointed so let me extract in that argument for a moment  the point he pointed out the a part yeah so here we have a cia now who is what the cia cia is usually somebody who has problems with the law that police officers convert into informants right and so if we have a scenario now where police officers are allowed to say oh well wait a minute i know what i said to the judge to get a search warrant but this guy pointed this out to me now i didn't tell you judge particularity which apartment it was but i'm telling you that my street guy who i can't give anybody the name to because it's a cia he pointed it out now if you would have said to the judge he pointed it out that would have solved the problem looking at there the police officer did a really interesting thing he called up the judge and said we've got a problem with the affidavit we have one number wrong it's stead of three eight for example it's three six eight eight six and eight he's in to make that mistake he called up the judge just said all right thank you for give me the information go on it and then he went on it after he spoke to the judge but it was a house it was a house and house in this house was well described as the fourth amendment requires with particularity so there is no well the c i whose name i can't give anybody said it's that place in the multi unit dwelling which all cops know is confusing meaning that he got a multi unit whiling they got do the homework i took the officers depositions and they said you've got to go in and know what's going on with you got to know exactly whether wise you take off you go home that's exactly what the seventh circuit said and jones ambiguity don't go with stuff that's exactly what  in other words we can't be doing post hoc analysis the fourth amendment's prescriptions are fundamental and a man's home or a woman's home and this but in this case the jones home it's their castle don't government can't go in and if they can't go and you've got to ask for a judge's permission and then you've got to follow the judge's order exactly that's the rule and in other cases where there has been some leeway it is for example where there's a house and the house is also described particular not all of your concerns you know that can happen because then it's a subjective test and then we have problems because then just like with the c i concept an officer can say well this is what i knew this is what i figured out i'm sorry i didn't tell you judge before i got my search warrant i know i am the arm of the state when i execute a search warrant but this is what i know and cops can say they know they know whatever they know at any moment in time so know you i believe you cannot we cannot allow for that because if we do allow for that then the exception begins to swallow up the rule and there's no more rule what exactly did the search warrant say ok so the search warrant said  first of all it was for a gentleman by the name of jamison carr who by the way was the neighbor neighbor was one b car our kind was one a car jamison car k k k momo a male black twenty eight years of age five feet eight inches tall one forty medium build black hair and then as i are numbers they go they come in if i make strap away from that follow up with that are going to just answer that question so they go into the house and they find four people none of them named jamison they'd look around and that's how they found the bullets opposition as they planted the bullets in order to justify their their mistakes and did what planted the bullets in order to justify this but that's what if we want to met many things that were not and i want to draw you to the most interesting thing that was not what george normal wrote in his decision which was a corroborating piece of evidence he said that in the complaint for the search warrant that the police officer sa c i said there's a pregnant female in the room this is the problem of the post hoc there's no pregnant female in the won't reflect in the complaint for the search wait a minute the girlfriend was pregnant in the room judge local said that's what the claim for the search warrant s but the claim for the search warrant didn't say that he added the facts in his opinion he added the facts to the complaint for the search warrant in order to justify the result a get in favor of the officers and i just give an example of of i don't i don't know if you're relying upon the specter on when you say do we're in trouble because police officers will say whatever they want to say in all cases of all breath ok and from from shootings occurring where murders are were   pursuant to the idea again which is our problem that there are bullets in his room he says ok and we say no bullets in the room he also said there was crack cocaine being dealt no crack cocaine found also guns were in  know i think at some juncture there was some there was somebody doubt the station who said something probably that would but it would neutralize the situation i don't know if it rose to the level of an apology i probably would remember that in the deposition by secure that answer  well i can tell you one thing that was problematic if you acquiring about it i said why to take him down to the station and it's like well you know sometimes people don't look the same in pictures you know and that's a problem it he never sought to depose that person he never made a request for a deposition the only reference that i found in the record is to a statement in the definite deposition of officer p in which they discussed the confidential informant and mr horwitz asked the name and our counsel objected to giving the name at that point but made it very clear that she wanted to protect the confidential informant and that without a court order she wouldn't provide the name that was the extent of her the discussion concerning it and mr horan which never followed up after that with the deposition so it's quite unfair to say that that the facts are all provided by our side he could have obtained the the confidential black letter law is at the very least that a mistake on the face of the warrant including a misstatement of the address is not fatal and that to whether warrant is lawful depends upon other aspects of the warrant at the very least and in some other circuits at least so far even that is not situation including their doubts i don't have access to i certainly don't know that there's no transcript in the record that i saw of the there was significant information on the face of the complaint for a search warrant the affidavit which was a description of the confidential informants the event in which she purchased she allegedly purchased cocaine from momo than the name of the person that she knew and his pregnant girlfriend in an in the apartment in which trac jones lived that all that information had been now at the at the face of the complaint for search warrant does not mention traced the the officer pearson learned from his discussions with the confidential informant about tracy and based on that that discovery that he testified to that it is deposition and and that based upon his contact with tracey he did a a lead search because traces karr had been outside the apartment and learned that tracy lib lived in apartment want to say and based on that he obtained to search apartment one a before the search occurred because they had announced before they did the search to all law enforcement agencies were we want to search apartment one a in that building don't confidential in the informant after when he drove the confidential informant to the building she quote pointed to the apartment right and identified it as the apartment where she met momo and purchased the looked at that address and and found a picture of jamison car at the hoop stating that it lived in the building he showed that picture to the confidential informant who said yes that's it that that picture of jameson car is moment now the picture with was of a person who was five feet eight inches tall and it was twenty eight years old  and the momo or at least muhammad whose nickname was mo was five five three inches shorter and was twenty one years old seven inches young seven years younger at the to the the search the the confidential informant told officer pearson that the search was that that she had purchased cocaine from  yes it turns out that it wasn't moma but it has since the police had this photo when they when they went into the apartment didn't they realize that muhammad was not was not the person in the phone well they realized that i don't know i in fact but i actually i do know the record specifically says that officer pierson realized that momo did the person he saw in person momo when he did perform the search did not look like jamison car but it was momo and the i don't understand they had a photograph and they go into the apartment in the person they see is not the person in the photo that's correct but doesn't that doesn't that degrade the confidential informants information she said this is this is the guy you're looking for they go in with a photo and it's not that person no she said what's left of what confidential informants she said that than that the person who from whom she purchased was momo there's no doubt that that car that the person in the picture not of it was not momo stand she was me this is what the police have a photo of the person they think is in that apart know they go in and it's not and it's not that person and they arrest him anyway well they arrest him anyway because his name was malvo and and he's not the person that the confidential informant said was the person that sold or the drugs while they undoubtedly believed that the that she was mistaken about the picture depicting the moment what it means she thought this was one person  really a picture of someone else yes because she'd given so much other information and the other information was well then the police know she's not reliable that may be so but they didn't know prior to well this pardon they didn't know prior to the search that she wasn't reliable in fact the search warrant why bribe this guy because they didn't have any information about him from her well they had it's all they have to go on they had says police or they had significant other information from her which was before the search yeah but the photograph shows this is the wrong person right that was only it was the only informa critical they know it's the wrong person they arrest him anyway that was the only information in a arrest him anyway knowing he's not the right colonel they don't know that it's not the right person  can act on that she didn't give them photograph they found the photograph from their own in their own record showed it to her she said yes it is but she also told them that the name of the person from whom she  point they they had his name momo as the person who would purchase that and his pregnant girlfriend looked to see a tow pearson that she had recently purchased for back a crack cocaine from momo in the back bedroom in an apartment at thirty two thirty six east ninety second street and that's where they are the c s i had also seen a blue steel semi automatic handgun on a table in the bedroom the c i had a record of providing information that had led to the seizure of narcotics and three cell any arrests in the prior previous three months place and she had pointed to the specific door she'd gone into so you do have a lot yes you do and they did not arrest anyone else they including the pregnant girlfriend they did arrest mo they took him to the police station they ascertained it still at that point they didn't know that but that he wasn't jamison car they do discover that he's not james car how long was it in the police fifteen minutes apart in fifteen minutes there and then they learned in the fifteen minutes that he was right now they did they apologise to him i don't there's nothing in the record indicating what they said to him they let him go quickly but if they give him any money or something they did i don't there's nothing in the record indicating whether they gave him any money but the the officer had thought that he might arrest him for not having the police personal relations or the the police thought that they might arrest him for not having a four card but they didn't arrest him but they could have but they properly arrested him they had certainly had probable cause to arrest him for that matter they had no business being in his apartment well they had business being and i don't think they did go out of the the connections to that apartment i think once they once they had the photograph they had to they had they needed to proceed more carefully they need to go back to the magistrate otherwise it just creating very bad relations between the police and a community of people who are already very suspicious of please this bad police behavior they don't learn that the photograph doesn't match the face of the person whom they encounter whose name was mulled until after the arrest well how is that possible that the photograph there is the person standing there know th the they had the photograph the the confidential informant says i purchased from mobile the officers find a picture the picture is of jamieson car they show it to her she says that's mo right they then do find out that tracey whom the confidential informant have also told them lived in the apartment lived in one name they  photograph appears to be mistaken photographs supplied them by the confidential informant you'd think they'd back out because i don't know who this guy is well it did at the point they were already in the is that the only didn't see it have police think no it was once they were in the apartment there in the in part meant they have reason to think that the person there in the apartment is not the person who sold the cocaine to  know they had conflicting information and they had reason to think that it that it might very well be a mistake and they had just as more reason to believe that it wasn't them no they didn't have more reasonably well the reason they had to believe that it was not a mistake is that the person whom they encountered was mo the same person who was listed on the complaint for search warrant and in the church ward itself as the nickname of the person who who  sold them the cocaine and that the purchase was made in the back bedroom and also with the by the with the pregnant girlfriend and they counted the pregnant girlfriend when they did the search there's every reason needed him for other purposes i don't know what what why he wasn't prosecuted i'm not i'm not sure that he wasn't but i don't think that he was but they had every reason to believe that that mohamed the person they had did did was the person who made the sale after all he was paired with the pregnant girlfriend who was also the conflict informant had also officer pierson that that was the other  found both of them in the apartment and tracy who the confidential informant had also said was in the lived in the apartment where the purchase from sold all the facts indicate that the only mistake that was ever made in this case was that the confidential informants mistake in saying yes when she saw the when the police officer showed her the picture of of jamison car and so notably this factual exchange right now is a little messy and we're messing around with trying to understand the facts about what the police officer learned afterwards and you're asking a lot of questions why because we're delving into areas that we're not supposed to be delving into it is very similar to all the analysis that is done in cherry versus the high old grammar so connor the probable cause test it's not twenty twenty hindsight with new facts police officers are you don't believe anything these police officer i work long enough in this field over four hundred cases that's correct i've done for the civil rights cases placement kind of cases frequently i don't honey i've done four thousand ok so but frequently i don't that's correct but nevertheless let's assume what he said is accurate every case says your honor that you must he must present that fact to the judge he's got to tell the judge that and then the judge makes a problem call and cause analysis that is the law so now he the facts are judge respectfully we do not weigh what the facts are said by a officer in a deposition in a civil rights case about what transpired afterwards for him to justify and help and make better the defense of this case that it's not the analysis that's not the analysis in a cherry case that's not made alice's in a grammar so the kind of case that's not the fourth amendment analysis all of those are fourth amendment cases and the fact that the analysis is what it was presented to the judge and to be clear just so you can appreciate the sort of the messy quality of where we're at right now the trial court in the trial court's opinion added facts that weren't that what we're talking about right now he added facts to the complaint in his opinion he said that the criminal complaint for the search warrant said for example that there was a pregnant woman in the room that the c i gave him that information and he wrote that in there to justify and help substantiate the case and for example today we're saying that the judge johnson lied know i'm saying that the judge wrote in his library said the judge wrote his decision when he wrote this one and sometimes judges borrow things and they create concepts and ideas in order to justify position this clearly happened because that's what occurred  facts that didn't exist and he wrote that the c i he was there what was written in the search warrant what went to the magistrate judge was that there was a pregnant woman in that room and oh look up there behold is a pregnant in the road or this this is  works and so all pearson now has to do and all any cop now has to do is say so this right is the same had the fact that there was a pregnant woman in the room it's not corroboration when when the c i said to sit pregnant woman and there is a pregnant woman in the room that's not corroboration let me look at the swelling he let me say this way in every case where a party prevails in a party loses their somebody who's just not telling the truth in some fashion or coloring the facts if it i guess anybody could say i'm sorry see i said momo she gave a different date she gave a different age she gave a different height off by three inches different weight and she did a photograph i mean what else can we if we look at the tot what else can we do but look at a photograph where the cup walks into and looks at the guy and says you're not the guy and she says that is the guy i was supposed to ignore that and i'll call a drug dealer i mean this is the kind of evidence that if we start a trap related and doing all this post hoc stuff people are in danger with all  respect in this case what happened is they took a battering ram and smashed the battering ram to the door about twenty times a huge metallic battering ram and smashed his door in and it one human bustin that they had to come to the door to to answer the door this is what happened in my batter down a neighbor's door they were looking for a cocaine dealer he was next door they just made a mistake they broke down the door and then dave apologized they ran away it to the other but short a few hours later police lieutenant showed up and said you know we broke down your door by mistake so we're painting where we're buying you a new too now in the briefs the parties acknowledged that many cases do say where the officer who signs the affidavit in support of the warrant is also the officer who executed the warrant and the record shows that he knows which correct premises to search the officers knowledge tends to ally any concern that he might have searched the wrong place whether b  is that by looking at so like my red light is up so do i stop going ok so looking at it from a commonsense point of view and i took the deaths of all the officers yet a multi unit well confusion always creates confusion what you got to do get particularities why because in a multi unit whiling you've got a first floor and what's on the first floor one a one b one c one d don't mess up don't make mistakes and be in the jones case where the seventh circuit opinion said that you can walk in and you can go to the right or you can go to the left depending upon which staircase you take the seventh circuit said i am reversing the summary judgment granting if against the and with the plane of prevailed in summary judgment through the seventh circuit by reversing the lower court in that case because there was no ambiguity now the officer may have known certain things or whatever but there was a staircase and pursuant to the search warrant could have gone to the right or to the left and that sort of thing and in the i want you to give me the ok we have to stop ok i