please the court dean stuart from san clemente california representing mister and i'd like to serve two minutes if i may try to help you watch the clock thank you i'd like to start by talking about sorrell the dog not simon from the last case that's right and it comes back to the harris case that was discussed in the last case as well and i would submit that the harris case requires the court to look at three things training certification and what actually happened or in the field work in this case in the old the toy case it appears that all three of those are woefully lacking starting with the training as we found out in the motions hearing training the log for it is in judge kobayashi's opinion not useful because every time zero would go out to train each  every last one of them says he found whatever it is they were looking for it was only after cross examination that we found we found out that the dog would oftentimes miss whatever the dog was looking for is or was looking for they'd hide it somewhere else and he may or may not find it then and if he didn't they'd hide it again so he missed perhaps three different times and the logs say he found what he was looking for each time each entry for years witness which i think was deputy silva he's asking you are there any other certification for store besides this booklet that has a passport that has its passport like with stamps the witness says it would be the in house certification from the state which is the certification that no one ever flunked ever in twenty one years no dog ever funded and also i guess with the american working dog they'll just send a  certificate in the mail so if you pass the in house state certification at least the american working dog they just send you a certificate it doesn't say anything there's no evidence that there was specific testing monitoring whatever it would take it's it's like you know in the old days you mail in for your box top from cornflakes to get a membership in some kids club it's the same idea with this particular one the certification itself  as we heard no dog had ever failed so for example they could have taken the deputies could have brought in a pug and a chihuahua and wanted to get them certified and eventually those two dogs would be certified it might take years for that to happen but because there was never wants one that flunked the certification is i would say it's far less than simply not as good as in the mainland when my question was i was reading your brave and from reading it i only see this challenge to the white certification as being pointless and hollow but is i don't see a challenge to what you're now talking about you may have argued in the district about it and see it in the court of appeals so maybe i missed it and you can point me where in your brief but i didn't see it i wish i could point to point you to it your honor but maybe it's just not there maybe i didn't address it i think it's still there because it was in the record down below but in any event where that leaves us is with really no way to judge training at all there's some statements by silva about we did this and we did this but the point of the log is so that now the defense the court everyone can come back and look at what the training was all about we don't have that in this case at all and of course i would suggest that is of critical importance and that by itself is enough to erode the probable cause in this case then you take this strange orwellian certification process where you just keep putting the dog in there and eventually he passes and it is a matter of yes and it's more common sense that it is anywhere in particular florida versus harris talks about the totality of the circumstances and this is one of them there is a process that gives you a certification but the process to get there is and you have to three different people about that issue and at no point did they say that there were dogs that washed out flunked or anything everybody that went into that system got certified and that's that's my point that's why it's so odd and unusual but you're talking sufficient because we don't know anything about california and the way they do it i would know that the same people that are involved in the in house why certification are also involved in the california state one and that's mr lacon and that evidence i'm sorry we had that in the briefs then we would be benchmarking and against that evidence instead i'm looking at the district court's footnote on that point about the california kartik canine association et record also didn't have the ability to make that judgment without the evidence well i would say that the burden was wrong and in any was there any affidavit or otherwise where you have a certification which  whether it's useless people to paper or not that's presented and isn't it the defense's obligation to not calls on that certification if you don't accept it and we tried to do that as best we could in the motions hearing and the record is what the record is finally and i will agree that from the last case in harris the actual performance in the field is the least of the three considerations but here perfect when we look at his actual logs he had sixteen percent error rate if you will and under those circumstances and the other factors that i cited in the brief i would suggest that  infield performance is also exceptionally poor the harris court talked about in their words the sniff is not up to snuff that is our entire point here it wasn't and therefore the probable cause was lacking and the warrant should not have issued the consulate as what evidence is there in the record that the officers expressly or impl promise only tell the can't see an exchange for his cooperation i wish i had the citation your honor it is in the record it was conceded by the agents that they would at a minimum bring to the attention of the prosecution and the court his cooperation but i would suggest that on that issue it's clear that he was given the choice either you go to jail and you go to hawaii right now in custody or you cooperate you go home our suggestion is that that's a threat that's pressure that's coercion and that's what the defendant testified to in that you have any case supporting or argument supporting the argument  again this is the totality of the circumstances situation so i don't think we can pick that one particular item out it's the entire environment that the agents set up including things like the rock long right up to los angeles the strong arm  rest all of it together is a totality indicates that he was pressured although you said in your brief that this issue of questioning in the car between when he was picked up and brought downtown is not an longer way to go in order to give them more chance to work on him to let him stew in what was going to matter if they drove to san francisco if the questioning wasn't at issue what  context about all of the dogs that were tested were certified i think it important to know that in the affidavit that was attached to the search warrant that the judge reviewed which was not included in the affidavit it sets out that this dog in particular had to go over one hundred and ninety hours of training prior to the certification process this dog had also gone through eighty hours vishal training from the whole police department canine unit prior to being subjected to this serve cation process these canine officers that is their sole police function they are handlers of these dogs these dogs that are employed in this case by the one who sheriff's department that is their sole function their reason for their existence is to perform and to identify locate and help in the seizure of these narcotics a sole purpose these dogs they are not pugs they did do not acquire them from the local dog pollen or the way humane society has set forth in the record this dog zorro was obtain from holland a belgian shepherd thousands of dollars the initial training occurred on the record sure a fall russell silva stated that he has to get the commands in swedish because of the initial training that this dog received these dogs you know suggesting because you speak dog never fails right kirk so well but it's like a kid taking a test you fail the test and say ok well i failed that test here i'm going to give it to you again and people learn and then ultimately they keep trying and trying trying to up and never fail the test so there is something a little suspect about the way they report the statistics is there not in terms of reliability if a dog were to fail there was a tie period where there was waiting there was additional training the dog would have to test again and in those instances there were no failures because eventually the dog would be certified but the point that the that the the government is trying to me is these are not called a dog handlers this whole program they know that they're going to be subjected to scrutiny they know because  have to keep all these records of the training exactly what the whole long what type of training looked up and caught it was used and any comments this training records are kept not because the they think it's something they should do this because it's something they have to do because they know they will be questioned on the training they know we're going to have hearings like this where the certification is are going to be questioned because we want to know  violation of his miranda rights my understanding of the record is is that all of all tola did not make any incriminating statements in the car and only challenge is whether his miranda waiver and confession were voluntary is that right or just your notes and your correct there were findings made by the court after his arrest and during the what happened on the record because on the record and it's in the government's brief that and the court found that the defendant was not promised that if he cooperated with the agents he would be home to see his wife and children that night he was not promised that support it because how can he claim that he was course if you wasn't promised that this is just the way that the events transpired  after he inquired about cooperation and they explained it to him when he got into the elevator at the da office and he said you know what i changed my mind i want to cooperate only after  the instance when they were able to debrief and confirm in fact that it was his intent to cooperate then the question was ok let me call your wife because you're working with us now we're going to release you but that's that's how the events transpired and that's what was found but of course that is the evidence in this ca argument this morning united states vs all atoll is submitted