good morning aloha my name is pamela byrne i'm from one of the hawaii i represent the apple and i would like about seven minutes to make my presentation and then retain the remainder for  the gun was found in a locked box in a locked cabinet under his house and the police that entered his home pursuant to a search warrant we can test the search warrant we asked the court for a frank hearing and were denied and it is because of that that we're here today in front of you the court knows very well the elements of frank's hearing and the test and it is important there's a couple of things that i think court more than just conclusion or information i have to give it i hope the relevant facts in this case what i felt would have been helpful to the reviewing judge and what i felt should have gotten me a change of frank's curing the twenty second is when he allegedly set up these undercover buys with the police i thought that the proper procedure for the district court faced with a request for a friend's hearing was to imagine everything in your client should be in the affidavit should be considered as part of the affidavit everything that should've been and it should be viewed as not in it and then to look at the affidavit sort of cut and paste and determine whether it would have been sufficient to authorize the search i think that's appropriate and why wouldn't the remaining parts of the affidavit provide it goes both ways but i think that the court should have known that this fellow was pretty obviously trying to work off that arrest and had a bias oddly the first cia in the history of drug investigations ever do i'm sure and the other part though that i wanted to and is that we have an unrefuted affidavit from the defendant's wife that the informant in this case was their drug dealer that they were the buyers and that the the references to things that are not submitted to the court by affidavit there are references if you would look on page sixty for example it says the confidential information informant told the police officer that my client is extremely paranoid particularly about his wife and so on and none of this was properly before the real in court there were no affidavits from the confidential informant there were no a or declarations from the police department as to any of these alleged facts and yet the judge considered them when the court made its rulings he did say there were some representations made that were not in the record i will not attend to those when i make my ruling nonetheless on page seventy one of the excerpts of record in a judge's order he specifically referenced as whether or not the confidential informant had a crush on my client d from the record and the fact also went into detail about the undercover allegedly the confidential informant went to documents i did question the validity of that the search the affidavit in support of the search warrant does not say that the officer gave the confidential informant any money this amount none of that was there they just said well he did a good we watched him go into the house he came out he came back and he gave us some i think that's insufficient when you have a neutral impartial magistrate who is supposed to decide appropriate upon upon review information received from a confidential informant this is a local search warrant for actually from where you county out on the big island and this is actually comes from local law enforcement why the county police department working with this  now especially with the defendant when he gets over to federal court after recover a firearm and he's charged with a federal offense as a result of that that's not a firearm what we have is we have a defendant who's looking at this informant and that's typical kind of small town fashion looking at him and having a problem with the informant having a problem with how can the local law enforcement rely on this this person as an informant and that's sort of the square peg in all of this because that's where peg they're now trying to apply to a french standard and to basically alleging falsities in the search for itself the key however is with this record looked at is you know what were the false statements what were the actual ledge perjured statements by the that was in the search warrant affidavit that you know in in a week and a half and working with this particular confidential informant local law enforcement found him to provide truthful information six times and some of this information lead me to implicitly equal a false statement and it's not enough to get us there that is the claim of a false statement we have to believe that the that the defiance in writing that in describing that as as insufficient as it may be equate this informant's credibility in this warrant and that's that's the issue as we start to look at it through the through the movie papers below the contested false statements we don't even get to  the the idea of the second part of redacting the alleged false statements and supplementing in these omissions because there really aren't any franks type of false statements saying when the when  it says this guy provided me useful testimony or truthful testimony six times to attack that statement is false you have to attack the fact that the informant ever told the affine that that he that he actually actually provided are material omissions that affect the problem calls will supplement them in and accordingly the court finds that the affidavit supports a finding of probable cause even as modified again that's on excerpts of record of seventy two so it goes through the proper test challenge because there's never a challenge on the facts of it that the control by didn't take place or the control by wasn't from mr reckonings residence instead it's a quibbling with the words if you go through a discussion of the word obtain versus the difficult for them to actually surveil the informant as he went in to conduct the controlled by us of the type of challenge and the type of evidence supporting that challenge just cannot support an actual false statement of the warrant and actual material omission in the verification of the facts in the affidavit and another thing that i queried at the time and i question the judge's decision on is that again the affidavit said that this particular strike that the confidential informant had given information truthful information six times past ten days but how the heck do we know that was i mean how do you know he was truth how does the reviewing judge know that because there's no search warrant warrant it's very general in it asks it suggests items to search for include methamphetamine and marijuana it mentions two three three times marijuana and marijuana sales