challenge the the dial of a motion to suppress physical evidence the evidence be enough items which led to his conviction in challenging the admission of that evidence alerted counsel in this case and in the co defendants case i received the other two email regarding the fact that certain matters related in the affidavit were not as related in the af says he was conducting surveillance or attempting to conduct surveillance of a residence and a car the residence belonging to my client and the car being said he was at the time an issue apparently handling or tending to the confidential informant if he was following the confidential informant if he was arranging the transaction  kind confidential informant if he obtained the the substance in question from the confidential informant then his statement that he had his attempt to surve washington is incorrect and false we believe that based upon that showing of the district court should have granted a franks hearing an evidentiary hearing to establish whether or not there the evidence merited that that the that that the evidence be the arguments merited that the granting of that motion that that motion should have been conducted that hearing should have been conducted and  that pieces of evidence if i might why not the admitted statement by the government that the manner in which the transaction was arranged was not escape it in the affidavit to the contradiction in the contradictory statement between the police report and the affidavit in the affidavit boomer the if i and deputy boomer states i was with the confidential informant a clear reading indicates that he was maintaining surveillance of the confidential inform the police report which he subsequently prepared states i was surveying the third party the the washington well you can't do bot i agree with what you just said your honor but the question was are there any is there anything more that i would point to and yes it's one the false statements regarding the confidential informant how the transaction occurred two the contradictory statements regarding the where the a fly into was or what his activities are and three that there were no police reports scott i can and i represent the united states of america your honor the district court correctly found not material inaccurate information contained in the affidavit because that information did not judge identified those arguments with disclosure for after we disclose the information regarding the third party and the district court one through and under franks determined that the information regarding the reports was not material and that the information regarding the third party who set up the transaction was not material so it is our position that the discourse should be affirmed because that information is not material and does not change the terminations of prob cos with regard to the inconsistency of your honor those are that's not correct first of all it was not raised at the district courts the factual scenario that is the defendant raised on appeal was not raised before the district court on before the district court the defendant argued that deputy boomer's surveillance was contradicted by deputy kaiser's surveillance and the judge then going through that determined that there was no inaccuracy there though they weren't contradictory now on appeal the defendant is arguing well it's actually deputy bloomers affidavit is inconsistent or contradictory with his reports now in documents sixty nine the defendant laid thirty nine o two fifteenth ave and at that point if you fall t to the cadillac escalated he then left the area and he lost track of them well what the defendant is not there has not identified to this point drugs into evidence and that was at nine thirty pm so a half hour later after the control delivery he then went and did surveillance now the we're talking about between where the county is and where broadway and  is a matter of ten minutes about us levon that twelve minutes specially at that time of night so those are not inconsistent there's no contradictory there is not a situation where deputy boomer was doing surveillance and it also was supposed to be on the c cia and the transaction happened first the controlled by happened and then after the control by after didn't leave the drugs were put into evidence then there was surveillance so for those reasons your honor response to our memorandum that there is any discussion about what boomer's activities were as far as time what he was doing and the government just alluded to we showed that there was a contradictory statement regarding the surveillance of the third of mr washington we showed that there was a question regarding boomer activities that called into question the propriety of the affidavit because a boomer is following washington are attempting to follow him then nobody's got control over the c i and then we don't know where this alleged substance which is the nexus to my client's residence this is mullins residents of which we speak the court found that that that controlled substance that controlled transaction was the nexus to the the  it doesn't destroy probable cause even if it hadn't been correct it doesn't destroy probable cause if it had just said we did a controlled by and on the cia or purchased marijuana tea without all of the details then then there'd still be probable cause to support the balance of the search warrant right i don't know that your honor because you don't need to put all that detail and judge you have a search warrant i understand the threshold at the threshold of a probable cause hearing but where did the controlled substance come from what's the nexus we have an i known individuals we have two one known individuals a confidential informant that we don't know anything about we have a third party who actually arranged the transaction who we don't know anything about who the government doesn't even know anything about assuming boomer's truthful in this last statement courts