he later made in the search of the vehicle which found the marijuana in the car if we look at brown vs illinois you know that there are four factors that the court must look at the person is whether miranda rights were given the second is the tempora search well i don't think so your honor i think that we are really looking at the intervening circumstances part of the four factors test for brown versus illinois the government the stop the initial to detention and the miranda and subsequent waiver and confession and brown and dunaway were both just under two hours they found that that wasn't sufficient time taylor was actually six hours and they found that that was not suffici circumstance that you're looking for is something that lessens the coercive nature of the initial intrusion and there is not anything to show that that happened in this case intrusion that however i believe that it is because mr and i was taken from the pre primary area which is before you get to the booth at the borders in the sense it's across the united states mexico border but it's not yet to the primary inspection area he was nature but here's what is troubling me this the district court decided this case in the background of some cases of ours that are a little confusing you know that seem to turn on what he is told whether  that you're free to go or not he's obviously he's at the border and that they're searching the car he knows exactly what's happened you know any reasonable person would know if they don't find anything then that's it but if they do then if there's trouble and it was after if i understand it it was after this case was decided by the district court the supreme court decided the case involving the gas tank taking apart the gas tank correct of detention issue or aggressive at the border it's routine when you're taking something apart that you detain the person who's driving not correct but i think that the the reason that it's a little bit different in this case is that he was removed from the vehicle for the purpose for them to search that the ankle and and handcuffed to mediately and not told what was going on and i think that that's what makes it different i recently innocent person if they were taken from their vehicle and handcuffed even at activity took place so this is your calling correct the intervening event is really supposed to be something that attenuates the fact of any prior illegal behavior since we didn't wait in our response the initial argument that that was an illegal detention or involved attention you know like you do that i mean to your office is always up to something you know i mean you come in you say we're not wrong on the dog but the intervening probably cause the most important analysis of the government the court to consider would be the fact that no evidence was derived from the detention that has been waiver alleged to be illegal no statements were taken no evidence was to write the decision to search the car was made before he was taken out of the car before he was handcuffed and before there was any fellow to inform him of why he was being handcuffed the only real difference between this case and now is the fact that he wasn't told anything at all although the agent did and show that there was a valid legitimate basis not just a potential basis for sending the car to secondary since it was a valid border search that occurred at the border of a car that was going to be searched anyway there was nothing that stem from the illegal arrest issues and that decision was requiring us to discover a wealth of information we did not believe would be in the interest of i'm having hypothetically speaking people who smuggle drugs to understand exactly how the dogs are trained so they can counteract the fact this is the dog with a commercial quantity of contraband the same is true of course help in a jury trial and they would have gone use that to a trial in this case because it was a full confession but what i can so the government on page sixteen the fourth one of the first full paragraph the government specifically stated that the dog found the marijuana found in the vehicle was pursuant to a lawful order search so we did not believe we waived then you argued with regard to this question of marijuana that was part of the whole theory of intervening probably cause and it was so st and i do understand your honour's concern about the recent supreme court rulings and about this tension at the border and whether something amounts to an unlawful detention at the border but there