erred in its finding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to save the search warrant in this case the affidavit and supporting testimony are so lacking in an issue of probable causes to render official belief in its existence entirely on reason and warm laws well established of police officers are charged with having knowledge of well established legal principles therefore the f b i in this case is charged with knowing that a affidavit is a written declaration were statement of fact made voluntarily and confirmed by oath or affirmation the affiant also knew that he must provide the issuing judge with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause moreover he knew that the issuing judge could not simply ratify his barebone his bare conclusions or beliefs finally affiant knew or is tasked with knowing that the problem cause terminations not a matter of faith the magistrate judge must make or issuing judge must make his probable cause determination based on facts not belief it was well established there is well established l this search warrant was executed indicating that the affidavit was defective by the time they executed the search warrant the hint rule was well established that rule requires that in the case of multiple residence prob cause needs to be established for each residence now there is an exception to the hc rule where if an officer knows there are multiple units and believes there's probable cause for each unit or the targets of the investigation have access to the entire structure the district court misread this court's case laws with respect to the exception to the hidden rule the district court order indicated that the athlete or indicates that the affianced satisfies the exception to the hitting rule by merely stating not in the affidavit but only in his testimony after being prompted by the issuing judge that he believed defend had access to all units there's no opinion from this circuit that i'm aware of that bestows some talismanic powerplant the phrase i believe the suspect has access to all areas such to that belief alone would be sufficient to satisfy th amendment concerns to the contrary have this court's holdings i believe butler is one of those cases indicates that a search warrant will be defective is defective if he fails to person of the position of the police officers here where the police officer presents what he's got to a prosecutor who drafts the application presented to a judge  and i understand your position to be that even though the prosecutor drafted and the judge signed it the police officer was on notice that he could not rely on those two legal professionals evaluation you're right my position would be that at some point we have to hold officers either court means what it says or it does it and when the court says it officers are held to no basic principles law i think it's clear from looking at this affidavit that any officer reading it would say at the very beginning where is where is the nexus between this crime and the place to be to speculate but i think if you look at the affidavit itself which is about eight paragraphs long i don't think the government or anyone who's looked at it is suggested that there is any effort to establish  and i think what's interesting your honor is this court has noted that sometimes in issuing judge might rely on the experience of the affidavit affiant regarding where evidence might be found and i'm familiar with that your honor in cases involving child pornography where there is a lengthy boilerplate statement where the affiant says based on his experience this information is usually kept on computers and those who pewters are usually kept at these suspects home in this case there is no reference to his experience or training which would suggest that in these types of cases the information the evidence sought might be found at the at the look at the suspects residence the place believed to be the residence and this court has to sit well in united states versus wiley that it agrees that with the district court in that case that it would be inappropriate to adopt a categorical rule that would in every case of hold the finding of probable cause to search a particular location simply because a suspect resides there and here we don't even know that he does there's just unsubstantiated belief that he is but even if there was evidence to establish and there aren't any facts to stand was it he does this court has said that's not enough you don't get this search someone's home just because you suspect him of a crime and again there are no there is no nexus locating her connecting the crime to the to the place to be searched and there's no nexus connecting defendant to that location because it makes a difference that this was a search for explosives as compared to what evidence of insurance fraud your honor did to my knowledge like the th amendment doesn't apply last depending on how serious the crime there so i would suggest to you that absolutely not  perhaps there might be some other exception that i'm unaware of for an exit in circumstance like that but that's not the case and the final point i would make before reserving my time for rebuttal is this no court that i'm aware of has ever said that somehow if you consult with a prosecutor and a judge signs the affidavit that to search warrant automatically good faith applies in fact those things are both present here we acknowledge that it enjoys a presumption of good faith however this court is still called upon to appellants residence and therefore the evidence that was obtained should not be subject to the exclusionary rule suppression of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that is later declared invalid is inappropriate if the opposite is who executed the warrant relied and good faith on the issuing judge's finding of probable cause and the decision to seek a search warrant or no team of search warrant is prime aphasia evidence that the opposite was acting in good faith of course a defendant can one of the issues there was whether the search warrant was so lacking in and just you have probable cause that no officer could have harbored and objectively reads that reasonable belief to the contrary and this court stated that in order to determine whether an officer could have relied in objective good faith on the judge's decision to issue a search warrant the limited inquiry is whether the officer could have reasonably believe the materials presented to the judge either or in some other respects such as testimony from the police officers were sufficient to establish probable cause and this court's decisions discussing the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule really focus kind of on areas one being the content of the materials that were presented to the judge and number two how those materials were prepared and presented and this court has repeatedly noted that consultation with the prosecutor a we believe he has access to the entire property those are two critical foundations for the search warrant without giving the judge really i paragraph two excuse me paragraph the read detective started back her he detailed is his quick investigation again under time pressure is because of the nature of the in that paragraph that this explosion that occurred two days prior that appellant bragged about at the o'reilly's auto parts with the employee this explosion occurred within a mile and a half of his residence and he did put in that paragraph that the residence that had been shaken as a result of that explosion is located approximately one five miles from the residence of the suspect and then of course detective sergeant becker he did include the statement that the premise used to be searched is believed to be the residence of the suspect he included a number of photographs that he had taken the morning of the application for the search warrant to include with the materials and so we acknowledge that there was not any further the police to be search was defendant's residence was by itself not fatal again judge hamilton what you you were saying earlier detective sergeant back here in this case did everything that he could to get a proper warrant all of this materialize on a sunday evening at eight pm he received this information that appellant had a pipe bomb in a public place that he was talking about detonating it at a at other public places to include local auto dealerships a circuit case that trucked about time pressure isn't how the time pressures of an investigation might produce some isolated negligence i would submit that that might be what occurred here that the fact that there was a risk to public safety should be a consideration for this court and that when detective sergeant packard see this information at eight pm and believe that there was an immediacy to act he did everything that he could to get a proper warning he received the information  investigation that the state's attorney asked him quote you're intending to go into the entire property where he's been staying which is the financial the restaurant that being that twenty one thousand north and old road address which presented amounted to probable cause we would submit yes or a consultant with the prosecutor on track in the documents or he testified before a judge after his testimony the judge had no further questions and instead made a jacket entry that he found that probable cause existed that he should have reasonably believed and did reasonably believe that the warrant was issued with probable cause and had every right to execute that search warrant defense argued the later affidavit that was submitted about the sheriff's interview mr along providing information that had not been that interview but without really defending your use of it you will address that point your honor to be we did provide that information however this court has stated and in the court that in the current decision  the good faith determination really should be should be determined based upon what was presented to a judge however the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter further police  misconduct and in this case i think that it's important just to know that detective starting back or he did have information he did a list information about the defendant actually living about address although that was not that in the affidavit he wasn't just willy a bad faith applications for a warrant by misrepresenting or concealing information now in those cases where the question is subject to honesty of the presentation we have allowed this kind of evidence to to carry weight where the police for example omit information that supports probable cause from their application  response to defend its motion to suppress initially i believe the th circuit does take into consideration subjective information information that an officer may have possessed but did not include in an affidavit and i believe the th circuit does take that into consideration and determining whether good faith applies if there is more of a subjective analysis that's included i don't believe that to be the law this circuit under cur so i did i did a cite to an th circuit case in my response but i do believe that current is controlling and that this court has said that the good faith determination should be determined on materials that are presented to the judge  that affiant claimed the defendant had access to was in fact a separate residence and the efi and had an obligation to inform the issuing judge that there was a separate residence where someone lives somebody else's home was on that property affiance omission of his failure to do so would the gate any claim it good faith well when you think about it your honor in the past the court has looked at coincidence of mr filson mr charles what evidence is there in the record there that he did not correct your honor there's there's no evidence that he did and therefore there's no evidence that he did that that that's the problem i think with the affidavit but what i would say is this the affiant knew someone else live there in a separate residence and did not tell the issue and jeff so they ask what evidence is there in the record of that there is a videotape statement of the resident who lives there in the new species or i think it's a document sixty six where she's there when the act executed now she testifies that she lived there for two years any effort on the part of the affiant to establish who lived there and there was none would have shown that there was a different property i guess i would have shown us i guess the f e n could have gone and knocked on the door and asked to live there but that might have given things away right i'm not suggesting that your honor i would suggest it because look it is opinion in johnson where it talks about all the steps the officer took there as far as calling utility company checking landownership records here affiant knew or should have known defend it wasn't the owner of that property defended didn't have access or control over his neighbor's home the idea  that his activities were somehow like shared there's no suspicion that this other person did new species or was involved in those criminal activities and common sense would tell you that what defend it was suspected is not something that you would be doing at your neighbor's house and so not only are there are no facts no common sense would support a belief that he had access to all these other structures the reality is if you did know specifically where  defendant lived so to cover that he had a belief that he had access to everywhere such as they would not miss the evidence  taken under advisement