went to the f b i told him that he had tons of evidence against the cullen and he wanted to basically turn helen into the f b i at that time the agent a little below said well he wasn't involved in that kind of stolen well the just records said that i believe the ruling was he made it to fold when he wasn't sure that the boxes were stolen and even if the boxes were stolen it was done by a private party i think that's the way the court looked at the findings so you know that's i understand that and that's why i'm referring to the transcript in which mr here was admitted to the agent livio that he had helped himself to the documents from the defendant's resi now the district court i don't see how the just record could possibly look at those facts and say that they were not stolen and in fact there was an arrest warrant out for the hearst and he was arrested and he was prosecuted on for stealing the documents and then later placed guilty to attempted extortion of the defendant but the the court the disregard in finding that the documents were not stolen completely ignored the fact that there was testimony from the take of a living will and mr hearers that he had help himself to the dock you didn't hear hearst have access to these documents no documents during the course of employment not of the different documents were tardy did have access to other documents within the course and scope of this employment correct he had but the documents in question here he said he was working well not under the case law your honor that certainly that would be one way that you could if you could show before the staff that they knew about it but as after the theft and before the government receives the documents they know that the documents have been stolen and the a the documents by thereafter using the documents then i think the government is responsible for the fact i don't have to have acquiescence so you have to you've got to have some government i agree action right and what's what evidence know was told in december of one thousand nine hundred ninety that there's the were stolen documents in the documents were not turned over to the i arrest until april of two thousand and during that period of time or shortly thereafter the i r s was informed by the officer investigating the theft that there was an arrest warrant for this hate hers for stealing the documents and despite that the i rested nothing to turn this into individual and did not call back the monterey police department and say that he was in the hospital for answers and continued to debrief mr haters and continue to use the documents so we have a situation that's the acquiescence and if we would permit somebody to steal documents go to the f b i and say hey i got stolen documents from the f b i say fine i'm not dealing with that then say but you go to the i arrest then have him go to the i r s some four months later before they've ever looked at the documents they are as know that there's a criminal complaint out against this person for stealing the documents told by the local police department that there's an arrest more don't do anything to try to turn that person and continue his degree if that person and continue to receive documents for the next couple of months from one individual into two thousand and two from the other individual documents were stolen fact was insufficient evidence in the record agent campbell testified that even though he received the documents and he had some concern that they were stolen that in fact after hearing from individuals who were involved in this he himself was not even concerned there was told and i think even more significantly from the very outset of the motion to suppress the defendant himself in submitting a declaration support for the motion to suppress never indicated that documents were stolen the report given to the monterey park police department dealt with a supposedly burglary of that with their history property there was no indication that in fact  well the basic principle of course is that unless there's government action the fourth amendment is not implicated and if in fact the documents were stolen assuming that for the moment if that initial hurdles still has not been met that is there was no government action there's no indication that in the lot that the government cannot use those documents if the government do not participate certainly that was in the record in the indication that he applied for the reward but that has to be considered against his own testimony at the time of the suppression hearing that in fact and also was corroborated by the that his prosecution for as it's been characterized as extortion that prosecution underlies any indication that the sole motive was to assist law enforcement so he has did yes he did issue and the other against the defendant on that that's correct it was one factor that the court to take into account as to the motives of the private citizen in acquiring the documents i think the most significant thing is that the court conducted an extensive inquiry document by document of both papers and near as to what the document was and where they got it in the court made a determination that there was no indication that those documents and it was phrased in a generic sense but it was to the the extent that those documents were acquired by mr miller mr heyer's either in the course of the employment in the case of mr mir collecting rents for the defendant or the business association that hearst apparently had the defendant at one time or the seminar that hearst attended put on by the defendant at which he got the seminar books which were the bulk of the materials turned over half after equal seven hundred fifty thousand the government response as to whether or not they knew of the documents were stolen or not seems to be going to the fox is rated that the church house and say hey did you go into the chicken house asking mr ayers whether he stole the documents by agent campbell in april of two thousand that he took the documents so for the agents or the district court to come to the conclusion that he didn't steal the documents is belied by the record in this totally ridiculous he admitted he took the documents found admitting you took them and many new stole them are two different things  in documents that you have stolen right to the to the government at the time this deal and then i don't think there's anything wrong however if you say i have stolen documents and then the government continues  well and that's it's like the walter case that aside in the brief we'll go back and look at those documents and you know over a period of time i continually turn the bend to the government like it did in this case because between april of two thousand and  two thousand and two there was a slow influx of documents that i think there is something wrong and that's the acquiescence argument and other words you know i think it would be totally wrong for the government to be aware that there's a theft taking place and then encourage the use  the documents by telling the person that stealing the documents ok where you can turn them in over a period of time but also list this year when you say that there's been a period of time the fact that the f b i did not accept those documents at first and said if you wish to utilize them reduce it to writing and take it someplace else how is that a continual pattern of acquiescence from the moment the documents were provided to the governmental entity well i think there's been i cut off at that this continual pattern that you're referring to is not correct well i think that if you know a theft has taken place and you're a government police officer so to speak and you don't do anything to turn that person in or contact the local authority don't you think that's the kind of police contact the conduct we want to discourage and if you can say to the f b i well life stolen documents and the f b i says fine we don't really care go to another agency and do nothing about investigating that crime aren't we encouraging the kind of our might be a little bit different had the owner of the home contacted law enforcement f b i and said i've had documents that have been stolen from my home you did if you found the police report in december the twenty first the day the documents were stolen there was a work and government acquiescence are you now i understand and i thought i would make the argument that there is government acquiescence when there are no the documents have been stolen they do nothing to investigate the crime they do nothing to turn the person in they know there's an arrest warrant