his confession and his consent to search involuntary laure court found that there was indeed police cornishman however we disagree with the lower co versus the time they are at the secondary location where what i don't is understand that what we're trying to determine is what was his condition at the time he provided information and the  magistrate judge did that because in fact there was a train how he fell and i suppose what would losing is looking at your client at that particular time what did he make a voluntary consent the magistrate judge says to the thurmond was not forced on either seven or nine officers of the task force that were on the scene forming their duties now if that is a factual finding you'd have to demonstrate it's clearly erroneous what you're saying is i understand a reasonable human being would have had in that situation only i have with your argument is that the basis of it is that thurmond said something reasonable and we should accept what mr herman said and fortunate for it is that the hearing officer not credit his test and so how can we if if we're going to rely upon mr thurman who aren't we going to have to be making a finding  that overruling a finding that the magistrate judge has already made and if so how can we say that that finding was clearly erroneous why why is there something that we have to tip over because the judge didn't believe your client down subsequently when they took when they were behind the strip mall subsequently there was a change of circumstance in the end the magistrate judge found that at that time he no longer had the proper your client testifies to the contrary in order to overturn that finding by the district court we have to say that finding was was clearly erroneous what is there that was clearly erroneous about disbelieving your client well i don't i don't key way what i'm saying is that at this point basically what the conversation is proceeding is left like a me that has already been beaten down i mean that has been subjected to an overwhelming  as this united states attorney las vegas nevada we would ask that you do uphold the finding of the just report in the magic court and we just offer that when you look at the measure of courts findings she has a full seven pages of detail facts if you read through the transcript she took an active interest in the hearing asking followup questions of each of the witnesses and provided a very detailed finding of fact in addition she also and i would we've decided in our court if there are certain factors that we have to determine just voluntariness that may be misguided that it's still the law of the ninth circuit and one of the so called factors is that we have to determine whether what the defendant was told in relationship to whether you can get a search warrant now in this particular instance he was advised as i understand it that the police told him that he could they could obtain a search warrant of his house whether or not he granted his immediate consent it seems to me that that raises the question of whether or not there was a violation and that factor could you respond to that please certainly on the record shows in the finding shows that the court found what was told to mr thurm we if you don't consent we will apply for a warrant doesn't mean that we'll get it but we plan to appoint one and if you look at the the waiver that he signed or the content to search it talked about  sermon that he would apply for a warrant his term and withheld his consent so he seems to be changing his his description of what was actually said between direct examination cross examination that would not that when you look at the total situation with regard to the breaking time the fact that he had the consent when you look at the total because the court has now told me i've got to have these distinct factors and i've got to just focus within sufficient to meet that factor what you find or see in your question correctly sir i don't believe that what he said and what the district court found would go to work hard against a lack of content on the part of the defense other words the fact that he is told i can apply for a warrant i may not necessarily get one it's a fair statement ok and then he says they're on their way to your house why don't you just make it easy on yourself and give them permission to go