and driving with a suspended license some twenty or more local state and federal law enforcement descended on sixteen heroin street believing that mr smith might be present the police belief in this case was based on some very scant information about mr smith's whereabouts and that scant information was completely devoid or almost completely devoid of any type of temporal markers that would contribute to a belief that mr smith was presently residing at sixteen arab street and would be present on that day and it is our position that the government's view in this case falls on the fact that there are none of these temporal markers this court and other courts that have addressed this issue have required some sort of currency with regard to the information possessed by the police and the connection with the subject residence to be entered what you have here is simply public database information that has no time stamp on it so to speak with regard to when mr smith may or may not have used sixteen arab street as his address you have the fact that the arrest warrant which was issued for a thief on his appearance dates back to august twent two thousand and ten which is some six months before the entry on the sixteen arab street and then you have an accident report which is on dated so none of this information tells you when tommy smith actually lived at this location and in fact when the police entered over the objection of the tenants of the apartment who told him that mr smith did not live there he was in fact not present on that day if you look at the cases that this court has decided and also relied on such as graham where on and this court's reliance on a circuit cases such as reason clayton every single one of those had some potent evidence of residence and recency for example and informants to indicating that the person was living there at that time or in graham immediately chile is the arrest warrant and that these facts six months and yes my position would be that that six month period is not sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that mr smith resided at that location  regardless of what dates they are going to raise it i would say yes and i think i would take some issue with the concept that there were so many different issues they all come from basically a public database search correct  bureaus right well i don't know that there was a credit bureau search done there was a public database search which showed that he had five an accident report there at some point in time there were f i o s field investigation observation reports that showed that that address was used at some point in time but again there's no i mean to take one step back there are no identifiers on any of that information at least in this record there's no identifies it identifiers indicating that that tommy smith was in fact the same tommy smith who is the subject of the people warrant and i guess the other thing i would add to your honor's comments is i do think to some extent here is a poll camera distinguishes this case in some regard in diminishes some of the  viability of that information that the police rely on the fact that they posted a poll camera outside of the residence for roughly thirty days before the entry and there's no observation of mr smith either coming or going from right that residence subtracts from whatever information the police did have and in some respects goes to the issue of staleness of that information so i do think when you combine everything here with regard to the fact that there are no temporal markers there's no attempt by the police to corroborate that as his residence for example on where this court said a simple phone call would have determined whether or not or potentially could have determined whether or not the subject of the arrest warrant was present at that location as that is operative assumption i think even if the police had a reasonable basis it's a phone call or in person doesn't much matter but you seem to be interposing a new test i don't believe first i do agree with you judgment with regard to the fact that that from i don't think that's a new test right new criteria i think that's what this court has said starts to get you to the level of reasonable belief not just to residents but also to his residence i think there has to be some connection to the residence within i don't think there should be a time marker put on it but you know well that's i guess thirty going back thirty days that may finish you know thirty or sixty days that's what you see in a lot of the cases some neal began with was a postal search for sixteen herald strips street and he received information that tommy smith received mail at that address  if mr smith had any outstanding warrants he obtained the arrest warrant indicate which was issued on january eleventh for an incident that occurred in august twentieth in which mr smith  listed sixteen harold smith street apartment two houses address but it's important to point out that that information was then supplemented trooper o'neill on february fifteenth requested the assistance of the state police and the boston police department fugitive task force and they did their own due diligence so officer ridge conducted you first looked at boston police department files found incident reports and field interrogation records that link tammi smith to sixteen arrowsmith st three he vented the national insurance crime bureau searched and found that mr smith had recorded an accident and given his name and that  and then on top of that both trooper o'neill and officer ridge had determined that at least carolyn smith who was listed as mr smith's mother in the accident report that she and a man had at a location where they reside so in those circumstances the district court correctly found that the officer satisfied both problems in my right the same for the person at the door when they against you i don't think that the record bears that out judge ledge for several reasons first off the the district court saw two pictures are sort of stills from that camera which we provided to the court and i think trooper o'neill's testimony at the suppression hearing is entirely consistent with those pictures when asked you never saw him at that location he responded you've seen those pictures they're not that good i don't know if he was there or not he was then separately asked on one occasion when they were conducting surveillance and they saw a car that had been linked to that address and an individual get out three he was asked were you able to identify that person the answer no didn't know if it was mr hamilton didn't know if it was mr smith could not identify him at all and  why does the government use cameras if they can't tell anything from what is recorded well you're on i think the i think the hope was in this case that perhaps it  would it would provide that information i did he explain that they were not able to do surveillance because this was a very narrow street and as he said the car any kind of surveillance would stick out so they did put up heard with respect to that whole camera was the two images that were in front of it and for and at least to my eye all i see is a figure walking towards that residence i can't make out if it's a man or woman height and time say unfortunately the record just has not developed on that there were very few questions asked at the suppression hearing about the pole camera and what they saw and i would point out as well we talking about january and february when the date is the shortest when it's particularly cold when people typically are wearing coats and hats and as you can see from the pictures this was not a head on a pole camera head on to the residence from the side of the street so when i think you take all of that in to consideration yes i think the goal of the poll camera was perhaps they could get a usable just so i understand what the poll camera evidence so as i think you can't tell anything about the identity of people who pick up on the camera but does the record show how many people were observed by the pool camera at all the total going there's nothing there's nothing in the record about that well we know that there were two figures see but are you saying that we don't know whether there were more than two figures in that that's right just cross examination of trooper oh neal so and the government didn't rely on the whole camera in terms of linking mr smith to sixteen heroes street so i would suggest to the that point but in terms of figuring out if it undermines it what does it undermine so i guess we could say that the evidence that you put forward about residence would necessarily be undermined because people can have a residence and not be at the house the residence is not presence but one might think that since you rely solely on time of day who are the reason to believe he would be present it would be somewhat problematic if the record over sixty days of taking pictures of the house suggested the only two people had ever entered the house that would seem to call into question why it would be reasonable to think that he would be there at six am i wrong on that no no i don't think you're wrong about that judge barrett and if the record show that house that argument could be made but the record doesn't support that assertion in this case and it's not i would i would only add it's not at all unusual for somebody to leave their residence if they're working early in the morning before it becomes light and return late at night after the sun has set and it's unlikely that any kind of usable that i could just make one final point in response to the question that my friend was asked about the fact that he was they were told he was not there i think marilyn vs viewing mace clear that they can search with an arrest w points one on the postal service from one on the pool camera first of all on the postal search mr quinn overland is right that there was a postal search that indicated he received mail there but i think that is also consistent with the fact of given his age and the temporary loss of some residences for people in their late twenty's as the court said involved in the eleventh circuit case that it's not unusual for people to use their parents address as a permanent residence i don't think that really allows us to lean much in terms of whether or not he was currently residing but what if we put it together with the fact that he reported it as his residence or a tommy smith report or when you say reported it as his residence we don't know when other than the august twentieth date if i thought you might be talking about the accident report on this so in terms of the the arrest warrant he clearly gave that address on august twentieth when he was pulled over for failure to yield and the like so he did give  again i don't know that that gets you to the fact that he's currently living there simply on a coastal search specially when you counter that with the fact that they did run around a utility search and the utilities were not in his name and many cases rely on electric and water bills to show that it's permanency of the residents of that person as to the pole camera there was reliance on the poll camera and i think there's several points to be made here one i don't believe it was our burden in the district or on this poll camera issue the government's testimony from neil was that he in fact relied on the poll camera to try to determine if the true subject of their interest mr hamilton would be present at sixteen harris street when he said when harris street based on the surveillance the poll cameras in the past it clearly had some man finish it clearly had some impact on the investigation and i don't think two still photographs which are hold from that are representative of what the overall quality of the footage and there's just no indication that men were coming and going from that location and therefore no indication that mr mr smith would be