may please the court my name is peter bartels ever present michael hancock in this appeal mr hancock brings to two questions to this court one is there we believe that it was here for the district court to rely upon the predicate felonies that were convictions of record for mr hancock's from the state of colorado it's our position that those predicate felonies were rehabilitated mr hancock have received an unconditional just charge from the state of colorado colorado is also a state that restores civil rights by operation of law to actually prisoners so once they receive that discharge their civil rights are stored not their right to possess a says that he's unconditionally discharged in the custody of the department of corrections pursuant to the statute it doesn't say anything about restoration of rights one way or the other that's correct your honor our position would be that the document that says he was unconditionally discharged means that there were no conditions that precluded him from doing those sorts of things that any other colorado citizen would be able to do that just means he's no longer on paper doesn't mean that his civil rights are b civil rights are restored correct your honor so he wasn't mouse didn't we believe that he was that the unconditional discharge as well as the operation of log around or creates confusion as to whether or not he could possess a firearm under federal law but even if he goes to the statute looks at the statute it doesn't say that it doesn't say it is just charge him it doesn't say  our position is that if the big three civil rights were restored namely the right to vote the right to participate on a jury as well as the right to hold office and he receives a document that says it is unconditionally discharged that that's what creates the confusion  with respect to the other issue your honor the franks issue the district court in this case held that the officer was reckless with disregard to the truth by of them in aiding or excuse me omitting information regarding the confidential informant and the fact that he was cussed for assaulting a law enforcement officer we believe that that casts a taint if you will in a hall on the entire affidavit and that perhaps if the judge that knew those facts that that search warrant may not have issued we believe that it would be bad policy for a reviewing court to be able to excuse deceptive behavior on the part of law enforcement with a sort of kitchen sink affidavit where the reviewing court would be able to pick a portion in section two or section three of the affidavit and say well that's good enough to establish probable cause excuse me therefore  put that in the end well our position isn't so much that it was the fact that this confidential informant was a bad person or a bad dude your honor it was the fact that this officer had information regarding this person and withheld it from the court i believe that if the court had known that this particular individual was in custody for assaulting a law enforcement officer or anyone for assaulting a law enforcement officer that may have cast number one a different light on how information he gave the police again your honor it's not so much from our perspective that the value of what the confidential informant gave us undermined it's that the law enforcement officer information that he withheld from the judge but the in from a well how could the information be relevant to the judge what the judge say well you can't use and you can't use you can't you can honor you're correct i think it would be very difficult for someone to find a confidential informant without a criminal record i think that what would be important for the court to know would be the information regarding that person so that the judge would have all the information in front of them and wouldn't have to  do any additional research attempting to determine whether or not probable cause should be established or that this search warrant should issue reviewed by the probation officer with the person who's being released from custody and it notes the state prohibition as well as federal probation and continuing to his us by arms it's not in the discharge document but it is a separate part of our processing department of corrections yes by the division of adult parole and community corrections when the person is discharged from custody and it's off  what was not addressed well since we're on the subject actually then i won't address pranks i'll talk about the the discharge document itself the way that the argument has been cast by the appellant in this case is if this is somehow an extension or falling within the parameters of buck meyer another society case law the circuit and it's truly a request to extend beyond book meyer and other associated cases it asks that rather than find mouse trapping by the state setting the bait with a confusing document and then the federal government springing the trap which is really what mouse trapping is it's saying that confusion engendered by the defendant's own faulty research is what bates the trap and that this is somehow due process violation because that that's what and other associated cases are grounded in it's it's a due process right being vindicated against what is otherwise congressional intent that strikes a balance and right now the court has struck a bright line test that says you look to the four corners of the  probation officer to tell him in the documents say you you could run for governor senator but you can't have a gun so this sense since ridiculous right there it is but it's another thing to expect the prisoner to conduct his own research to find out the scope of his restored rights and he's not being asked to conduct his own research what the claim here is is that the very fact that somebody might do research and might reach an incorrect conclusion is somehow a due process violation that under up myron associated cases does not allow the government to use the predicate and that that's not the case law they would be unworkable what the court has now is is a fairly bright line test that's workable and strikes a good balance against congressional intent and substantive due process and to expand beyond that would simply frustrate congressional intent without actually vindicating any due process write it off i don't know i don't understand the due process argument that you're making what your are if if you are saying that the trap that the federal government spring shot has been baited by another state actor i think that that's essentially what constitutes a restoration of civil rights and the majority said it's the document that counts not what state law says but what the document says here are all the document says is your discharged correct end of story so we have no  apply if the probation officer had told the person being released that he could probation officer did tell mr hancock in colorado does as a matter of course tell now i know well frankly or are i don't know because buck meyer itself only deals with the situation of looking at the four corners of the of the document and if the hype and i just wonder if that if there's another document then  why would one worry about what was left out of the first act i don't know i don't believe one would but because that this document just simply didn't refer to any restoration of rights it's clearly decided on buckner just a bit of care for good we look at the having some difficulty with your image like you to make the governments feel and certainly your glover's distinguishable thought factually and legally glover involved a case where the chicago police officer presented an affidavit that relied almost entirely on the informants allegations and included what the court said no information regarding the informants credibility in our case it was a was a four l stool really as it is is the way the message should judge characterized that there are four different areas the confidential not kept that the informants information was only one leg of that stool further there was a information about the informants credibility even though the criminal convictions were not included in the affidavit there were details regarding his own practice a patient in drug sales drug transportation he had a track record i'm sorry informant had a track record yes he had a track record he had a track record he had firsthand knowledge he he was subsequently corroborated prior to the search warrant application through text messages he said that he for vide of the for the phone number for the defendant for the defendant's girlfriend said that the defendant typically does not like to use his own telephone so he would use sarah davis's telephone his girlfriend's telephone and sure enough when those records were pulled prior to application for the search warrant that is exactly what the police found so it's highly distinguish well from glover and frankly what what the government argued in its brief was been decayed it in the most recent case issued by this court in mullens which the government provided in a twenty three letter but more fundamentally under franks mr hancock has has waived the issue of rape allegations alone provided a self contained independent basis for issuance of the search warrant  measured judge's report and recommendation as to that independent basis was not challenged by mr hancock judge crabbe found that that if you had been waived and furthermore has not been raised here on appeal so there peabody's criminal convictions he does have convictions for burglary theft possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine the he was sitting in jail at the time for resisting arrest under circumstances that cause injury to a police officer so he did have an extensive there's no denying that he had an extensive criminal record and that those convictions were not included in the affidavit but the reality is  found that even if you were to plug those convictions back and it would not alter the probable cause determination actually the math conviction and hence his credibility because he's providing information that's the only thing that's a double edged sword of of these criminal convictions you're right i mean if i were the issuing judge reviewing that affidavit that would be you know potentially credibility enhancing thank you run or if there are no other questions is it correct that the confidential is information that was left out of the affidavit and an actual finding by the district court eyes that the officers leaving that information out was reckless the concern that i would have your honor is your honour's is that if the court says that mr hancock isn't entitled to frank's hearing it creates an insurmountable burd if we have an officer that engages in reckless conduct and with this regard to the truth and that conduct can be explained away in a different portion of an affidavit a defendant will never get a franks hearing and it sanctions the officers behavior so that would it would never be