yesterday without a description this actual mobile home was actually the mobile home that was identified as the gray mobile homes type structure that was specifically identified in the warrants description how do you how do we know that in light of the other mobile home that was there can you say i mean it's interesting because the district court had trouble with that did have trouble your honor however if we look at the record the only evidence in the record supports the finding and we submit that the district court did actually find that or conclude that the it was the mobile home an excerpt of record sixty six the district court says and i admit it's not that clear but it does say that this is the mobile home that deputy holds says was identified in the war and that is that finding is the only finding that would be supported in the record because so there's one mobile home identified in the record that's the gray mobile home type structure that's identified in the warrant and remember they could not get on the property the structures were not able to be seen from the road as the district court found so the only thing he had were these aerial maps and i would encourage the court to look at our reply brief but no he had somebody had  halls had two aerial images of the property from google maps when he was swearing out the ones those two images i guess i guess i understand where you're going my biggest problem with this is this do so the magistrate judge didn't know there were two mobile homes and we have some confusion about whether the mobile home in which the defendant was was really the mobile home in the description and if that is so and the and the then how can i be sure that the magistrate judge felt there was probable cause to search the home that was searched because  magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to search the entire ranch and all of the structures on the ranch that isn't enough because if i look at cam and it says to the extent that a third party acquires a reasonable expectation of privacy even a search of a guest room in a single family room or residence which is rented or used by the third party requires a special warrant so here i am applying canon to this case and i'm saying the judge doesn't know there's two mobile homes it's unclear that the mobile home which is in the warrant is where the defendant was and nobody asked the magistrate if they could search both mobile homes so again back to my question how do i know that there's any probable cause here by the magistrate because your honor first we would submit that canon is not the correct lens through which to look at this case alexander is the correct lens for look through which to look at this case this is why because this is a single branch with one gate added to one single family home in camden honor with two structures on the property and the court found it and who are more rooms in the single mobile in the single family home however the courting can and found that there is no way that the officers reasonably believe that the two structures were one piece of property because they were enclosed in one in one fence as in as in alexander and as in this case well but alexander's it seems like it may be distinguishable here miss all i think  because in alexander if i recall correctly the affidavit established direct was under common control of the suspect i'm not sure that we have that here we do have that here you're not ok and then also  law enforcement did not have access or knowledge of the property because of the rule sadly here your argument even if you take what you say as correct only takes you so far because prior to the execution of the search they didn't go along for smith didn't know that there were two mobile homes on the property however your honor they did not know that those mobile homes belong to different people and i did there's no evidence in the record that they did in fact the the fresno methamphetamine task force that had those earlier pictures reached exactly the same conclusion add to that as did the state court judge who issued the fresno methamphetamine task force warrant that this was a single ranch under owned by one person under common ownership and control the fresno methamphetamine task force warrant that identified both mobile homes also said that this was a single piece of property that judge who issued the war in that case with that additional information also reached the same conclusion that it was one ranch under common control and i let me i think we know because judge cavalia didn't rule in your favor so we know what the weaknesses that your case are about i want to kind of get on the record we have limited time but i want to get this i think it's important so that we understand the gist of your argument so you rely on alexander because that you think that to support your argument that the warrant authorized the search of the entire world ranch property is that correct that is correct all right and then we've heard discussions about so it can controls that's not good for you if alexander controls that that's and you're arguing that you fall within alexander so it seems to be undisputed that between the time that the officers got the warrant and actually went out to execute the warrant that they received and updated information that there were two mobile homes on there and it seems to be undisputed that they didn't seek a refresh of the warrant or an the moment that the officers that stepped outside of the mobile home that the agents were lawfully on the ranch that they lawfully went up to the mobile home that there was no issue no issue at all in still outside judged also didn't hold of frank's hearing because he said there doesn't seem to be any indication that the warrant that was issued that there was any false information in there that there was an error or any omissions or anything along those lines you know that the second mobile home that the president had that mean task force identified as dilapidated unoccupied boarded up windows so there was no indication even to them that that second mobile home was occupied that it was a residence in fact they thought it  wasn't so they had the same information that there was two potentially occupied structures that was given to the to the magistrate in this case the ranch house and one mobile home so if the second there'd been ten mobile homes on the property there weren't your honor we're just asking  mean but based on your argument they should have been able to do all ten your honor but that may have been a change circumstance that they may have needed to stop that that's not this case this case they are approaching the mobile home that was there anything in the record that would indicate that the officers had some sort of discussion or something there's another bubble maybe we should go back or and i'm asking this for purposes entire property and alexander controls so if let's say if we don't agree with you on that are you relying on exigent circumstances i think protective sweep and  exceptions argument right here yes or no because the facts are undisputed just that with what your argument on that i'm just my argument on that is if you look at the facts that are undisputed and i'm happy to go through what those are  thing they thought they were authorized to search that mobile home there was nothing about it that indicated to them it was a separate independent residence and indeed the only facts on the record that show it is our own declaration which they just report disregarded because he refused to because i want to talk about the leon analysis because i want to make sure if i do that what ok it's undisputed that the officers knew that there was a second mobile home the correct so but when you do the leon analysis the fact that they know that how does that correlate to is there any indication that because you have to look at what an objective officer would have thought in terms of did they have a valid search warrant so what is that what is in front of us here to do the leon analysis certainly on the fact of what the officers actually knew was that there was a second mobile home on the property that they believed was unoccupied and boarded up and possibly a methamphetamine laboratory that's what they knew and so when they approached the ranch they knew they had a search warrant that authorized them to search the entire ranch they knew there was a ranch had there were two potentially residential structures on that ranch one mobile home and the ranch house they knew when they showed up that there was a ranch house and there was a mobile home that could have a could not have been occupied they knew that the ranch owners cars had been seen not related but we don't know whether he was ready or not your ok only evidence the record doesn't show that they're related but they have the same name they have part part of the same last name you're on but you don't wouldn't it be you don't know that they were or you would have put it in here if you thought they were related  the fugitive that you were looking for controlled the entire ranch you wanted that was not the finding it was that the owner control the entire ranch this was a warrant to search a third party's property not the fugitives from and who was the owner here happened during the execution that meant that they under under leon's exceptions it was so egregious that they had to realize that the magistrate's command you go search this whole ranch was no longer valid and that's simply not the case none of the four leon exceptions apply and in fact the district court did not specifically address leon but in its different findings the district court found that there was probable cause to search the entire ranch found that the magistrate did not act as a rubber stamp found there were no false statements or emissions in the affidavit and found that the ranch was was identified sufficiently as the place that they were supposed to be searched so none of the leon exceptions apply here and the district court's finding was that the mere fact  of outside looking as if he had just woken up was so egregious that the officer should have realized that at that moment they had to stop and that finding is simply not reasonable and that is fundamentally our argument which is that the district court just applied the wrong standard in this case the standard is supposed to be not a and they just report repeatedly said the agents did nothing wrong i'm not finding they did anything wrong i'm just looking at this with the benefit of hindsight and that standard of looking at it with the benefit of hindsight fly specking the details of the warrant based on what we know now as opposed to what the officers knew then that the supreme court in this court has repeatedly held is not what the district court said the district court so they didn't do anything wrong but the district court specifically ha excerpt of record eleven and thirteen there was no way that they could have no basis the aerial photographs he found that you know he found that there they could not have known and still he stepped outside and there's simply no reason why him stepping outside should have indicated to them that it was a separate residence well it was what they expected it was so that i guess and after hearing everything the district court i think had a difference of opinion that you did on that stated or i say specifically there were many references when he was trying to figure out what happened here once they knew there was a second mobile home you could characterize it the way you characterize it the the implication here is they should have stopped and gotten a warrant where that's when he stopped out and stepped outside or whether it was before and when they knew but he said it seem like they knew based on the other plans that there was a second there was two mobile home so that is not what he found her specifically an excerpt of direct record eleven he said the court found and what i was saying when we were last together so this is at the final hearing is that at that point when they made contact with the defendant that's the point where i think the problem occurred when they made contact with the defendant when he stepped out of the mobile home and then again an excerpt of record thirteen he said certainly when the defendant presented himself that as the evidence showed would give rise to think that he had been awakened and an excerpt of record thirty to thirty one he said it's really at the threshold as they were present at the mobile home that is the problem and  of no moment that they had these better drugs beforehand it was when he stepped outside looking as if he had just woken the district court found they should have known and this gets us back to canon which is that even in canon and in maryland versus kerrison this co court found it wasn't until the officers that inside and they saw the indicia of living inside of the of the apartment that the officer should have known even in all hands to me that i can use the same kind of analysis  saying alexander doesn't apply here because i'm alexander the officers did not know about the existence of the trailer when they did everything and when we got to this case the office didn't know the existence of two trailers they knew exactly that there were two trailers they knew what was described in the warrant and they knew that and now what you seem to be trying to get me to buy is that i should take a general description even though there is a warrant with an accurate description of what is going to be searched and that's all i was trying to get cute to deal with and what i'm saying your honor is that what the president what so what the warrant identified was it identified a mobile home trailer and the ranch house and several other storage shed type structures what the fresno methamphetamine task force one identified was a ranch house apparently occupied mobile home and apparently dilapidated mobile home so what we're talking about in my question really  the question was very simple it seems to me that what was described here cannot be said to be the trailer which was searched that is not correct well i think it is you got two trailers this was to be why and this was to be gray and it wasn't it had a different geographic location it did not you're on to the northwest west your honor and it had a different access road to the left no your  honor it was not in a different location and the district court went back and forth about where it was but i what i would point the court to is the actual description in the one of the things i think that the district was confused about is the description in the warrant describes the corral as towards the front of the premises but the mobile home is to the back of the house and one thing that although i'm supposed to disregard the different chords idea of the facts as to that particular issue no your honor but what i would say is that the district court ultimately excerpt of record ten which is again at the very end of the district court's findings said the mobile home well he could have been in front of the house could have been behind the house could have been next to the house and found that to be of no moment but what the gist of what the warrant description actually described was so the confusion arose from the fact that the house is actually turned sideways towards the road so the mobile home trailer is actually behind the house and toward the back of the property talk about this and that's why i've been asking me for the questions it seems to me we're back at the same problem and that's the problem i wanted you to describe there was only one trailer which was to be searched  descriptions are very difficult to say that what was searched was really that which was in the warrant and therefore with two and not just one and the description in the warrant not being exact then the government wants to say well we're in for get the description let's just go for the general description of the property and live search everything so then when i get to that then i say to myself can we let him do that alexander's not on that's why i've been asking those questions your honor where we are is that even in canon what the court found was that the officers were lawfully on the property because they were allowed to search the other part of that same building that was perfectly lawful that was used as a storage area and w well please no your honor but if that's what your argument is that is that is what you're arguing no no you're on it because in the ten trailers all appeared to be storage shed like structures which were described in the warrant they just they didn't appear to be habitable then sure yes they would your argument is so not everyone thinks that the argument is well what we're trying to do frankly judges get her to do is to distinguish what her argument is because that seems what their argument is your honor my argument fundamentally is this the trailer was described in the warrant but it doesn't matter because they were lawfully on nobody is arguing they were not lawfully on the property they were lawfully on the property as the only problem that the district found was when  outside they should have known that the trailer was occupied but even just having it be occupied they knew they were going to find other people on the ranch and what we would cite alexander for is the fact that people were sleeping under different roofs on a rural ranch does not automatically tell the officers that all of a sudden they need to stop they were allowed to do what they did which is go up to the trailer not on the door identify themselves as police ask if there were any people or guns in the trailer when they learned there was a three year old child in the trailer with a gun they were morally obligated to go and get the child get the gun and get out and that is what they did they thought they had a district court general on the extreme circumstances on that not your honor precisely because the district court found that it was the moment why the district court didn't make the leon analysis has there can be you can be wrong and hope that someone's wrong and but leon still is you know a savior i agree your honor and what they did to did you ask the district court to make the leon analysis because it and what the court say i know you asked but then when the court didn't  so did the court implicitly salient nothing save two or what the court simply didn't didn't reach the issue didn't say anything but was but you made the argument you did make  ok well we've gone way over but so will with the appellee will take as much time as we need with you then too so and if we have any questions after you obviously don't have any rebuttal times laughed but if anyone has any other questions we'll do that t than the government does the government has tried again and again in their briefing to distract from the district court's actual findings the government cites only two excerpts of record sixty six indicates that that's the only finding made by the district court when in fact that's not correct excerpt of after sixty six is a summary of what the government's arguments were to the contrary the district court at eighty one through eighty four discussed that there was a complete difference between the information that was presented to the magistrate and the affidavit and the information that was known by the officers who executed the search warrant that information was known to those officers not just when they arrived on the scene but prior to that at the briefings prior to the execution of the warrant and we know that because there are reports that there is an investigatory plan from deputy halls there's a separate investigatory plan from the i'm not really finding that many disputed facts so the one thing that's that's disputed your honor that at least until it maybe you can focus on that because it seems to me it's clear that the officers got additional information after the search warrant they didn't seek an expansion of the search warrant and so and it looks like in preparation to go out there they prepared in a way that they thought there were two two possible you know they i mean physically prepared for ordered out of his home at gunpoint and that's not in fact what the district court found that is a court found that that was an improper seizure but the district court also found that because the home was outside of the scope of the warrant that was different than the affidavit and that's an ex district states that over and over again the the excerpt of record that cited by the government is simply a summary of the of the eleventh hour declaration for deputy halls where he attempts to inject his subjective interpretation of which of  which trailer home it was in to the contrary as the court noted there were two trailer homes and the district court found that both of them had significant in dishes of occupancy they had driveways they had cars outside and in fact they had people living in them the  owner of the property and you still yo bras medina was found in the other trailer there's a separate driveway and car there there is a car or two cars in mr elkins are ross his driveway and him in his home and then other individuals were found in the main home and so that what government counsel is is describing fresno meth has force prior surveillance where they saw one of the two trailers although i don't think it's clear which one it was it was boarded up and about a year old surveillance but with  is that there were two trailers there they'd been assigned in there and both their own operations planned as well as the u s marshals operations plan to address those trailers but they're not looking for your guy they're looking for a fugitive with another name that's right noted it was a different color and at best the government can argue that it's it's ambiguous but you have officers whose knowledge of the property was not in any way ambiguous if they were know that there's a three year hole three year old in there and old in there with a gun ever they can't do anything because they weren't lawful in first place is that your argument so their knowledge of that is their knowledge of that is learned after there's an improper seizure and so the fruits of that should be suppressed now that the factual sequence here is important too if we get to the stage of dealing with the exceptions because officer ortiz took the mr officer to the printer and then he went and got the three year old out and at that point there's no longer any danger even assuming that the court found that there was a danger to having a firearm in a home with a child when the child was sleeping the firearm was unloaded there was no further information of the officers there's no edges and see about that there's certainly no exit nor public safety exception when the when the child has been brought out without incident the officer then has the child out of the home has mr out as our bras out of the home when there were t retrieve the child from the home they certainly didn't see any other exit in circumstances they then go back in flip over a mattress and find an unloaded undisputed that the officers knew more after they got the search warrant than when they went in but that isn't the leon standard but it is your honor if the if the warrant does not do does not facially well what evidence is there in the record that the officers with that knowledge that they knew that the what evidence is there in the record that they said well gosh now we need we need to get another search warrant we can't rely on that search warrant and i'm not saying that it's not relevant that they knew that information but knowing that information doesn't preclude a leon analysis so that if we sit through that leon and because let's say you know that information but you still don't think you need to get anything else you still think you have a lawful search warrant and objectively if if the supreme court looked at it and said objectively a reasonable officer would still think that they could do the search that they versus what they come upon the scene their knowledge of that and perhaps ignorance of what was actually in the warrant is not excused under a leon analysis they have an obligation to notify the magistrate when there's a material difference between what they're authorized to search and the warrant and what they're also but to to to make leon not applicable it would have to be obvious to any objective officer that they were doing the wrong thing at that point i mean because the court said the wa valent valid there wasn't a franks they didn't have a franks hearing as far as that goes so for leon not to apply it has to be obvious to an objective officer that they were doing the wrong thing that officers knew or didn't know is not as important as what was in the warrant it seems to me that if what was described in the warrant was a different home then they went after and they knew that going in then there's no way for leon to help you out and that's exactly what the district found on well where in the where in the record does it say again because since counsel says quite the opposite that this was exactly the trailer described in the warran where do i find in the record that the district court did not find that to be the house to be in the warrant the one they searched you know that's that sorry it's an excerpt of record eighty one eighty two ok i've got eighty one eighty two eighty three eighty four correct and it's also at fifty five and fifty six the court describes the difference between the information known and presented the magistrate as well as the and the information  in the operations plans and additionally in addition to the court's findings that this court can consider the operations plans of the fresno meth has for us as well as the the u s marshals  compare that with the warrant and they are officially different and that sets this outside of the scope of the one well it seems to me that if the seizure happens and it seems to me that the suggesting the seizure happens when the guy's ordered out of the house and he comes out then exch and circumstances it goes out the window because the seizure happens before the exception arrives if i go to inevitable discovery again because a seizure happens before the inevitable discovery and doesn't seem to be that applies either so then i've got good faith and i'm less physically on and if it fact that a house described in the warrant is not the house they searched doesn't seem leon applies either is that your argument  so just take another run at this because it seems like the government is arguing cannon distinguishable from this case alexander applies and then leon describe alexander is significantly different from this case in a few ways one alexander was a search for contraband and the alexander defendant was in particular the owner of the property and was the leader of this drug cocaine processing conspiracy they evidence of ether and acetone and cocaine packaging materials being delivered to the property none of that is present in this case here we have a steel warrant where the both the president by fast force as well as the marshals acknowledge but the alexander case also has a catchall in it that says any and all service structures etc and so the i was in a court found in a limited holding that there was that the trailer the that the alexander defend it was sleeping in was included in those  and finally that this court and may never see the city of sami valley and it has indicated that there has to be a factual basis to to fit through the alexander limits it can't simply be announcing that this is a ranch in a rural  area the district court in fact described this as a trailer basically a mobile home park and that's an excerpt of record eighty five and so simply announcing that this is in a rural area even though this is point three nine miles off of a very heavily traveled road  does not accept the requirement that each of these homes be describe the particularities so the government when they say oh no the war authorize them search every building not every building that's of it so the buildings that were described in the warrant and the government has has offered their opinion as well as their their agents subjective interpretation well after the fact that they believe that that was that trailer was described in the warrant to the contrary there are factions that it was not and the district court found that it was in fact not the district court had the benefit of testimony live testimony from two agents significant briefing on this and correctly found this is not supported by probable cause and so why should the good  so so the the good faith would require their their lawful presence but there's no i think even i mean the district was briefed on the own issues was it was argued by the government  district court did find that officer should have known that additional authorization was required before searching absolutely at several stages through the process ok in the additional questions ok thank you submitted thank you