prison a long time because i'm a legal search warrant a search warrant that was based upon very false information all the evidence should have been suppressed and should not have been admitted at trial you'll see that it's blatantly false for these reasons on page one hundred and three of the a denim when detective canis is talking about how this investigation began to mr o'neill on page i'm talking about aaron was distributing it then detective canis had libby the confidential informant call aaron and i'm using air because that's a name to set up this controlled by then they went to the controlled by and it was aaron who did the control by then when eric gets back to the car he and this is a recording and then on pa get back in the car he  the word the word fact for your argument is that the recite the warrant recited and apparently it was it's not contested that the buyer went back to the same apartment that this contest because that his own attachment it says right here a short time later surveillance observed a female black later identified as melissa taylor exit the rear of the apartment complex and it was from the back of the apartment not from the bus so there's no evidence that there was a drug at the place i can't i guess you can argue this to a jury but it's obvious to me the seller can go out the back door and back in the front door the specific identity of which woman it was the sister in law or the niece didn't matter it certainly matters because number one it she didn't come out of the apartment she came out of the back of the apartment building retrenched thought was pretty critical i certainly do the court can read detective canvasses testimony and all that well then the court would see that aaron barrette and the reason that he put blatantly and falsely put morrison taylor's name in there is because that's how we'll never agree on any case well but that's my agreement that's what i'm going from the facts of the exact words of the attachment and his trial testimony so the thing if you look at the other cases when you put in an identified person what with drugs and she back across the street was five months into the apartment right but that's not what the attachment and the trial testimony say they say that sheep they don't know where she came from so do the controlled by out of the control by out of this what the control by was it out of the apartment that was where the supply hole just up so that would have been the car that that your honor referred to or the back of the building you're on to refer to if this court looks the other suppressing cases of these franks cases when they look at this what's the key component the drugs were in the apartment to begin with the controlled by it's what in the apartment ok they're right in there what you might as well go on i got that argument out of your brief ok so with that since this was blatantly false information and the testimony of canis shows that at during the trial and in his his  attachment every evidence has to be said well i guess when you look at the search warrant there's never any connection to the apartment once you delete all the best information and even the district court because they're the reported in form and hadn't actually observed anything that occurred in that paragraph and here we had a long horsemen actually serve a lot of what happened maybe a different person them they observe strong thing so that's cooperation there and so in this case we're not going to do we have to believe that what detective kenneth says is true based upon the fact these are already lied that it was more or less a tailor doing this back in to the front of the building into the apartment so there's no evidence that fifty grams of crack ever came from the apartment in the other cases even then and the bridles case there were trash showing that there was drugs in the house and that right eventual he saved the right if you look at the other the government's cases when they talk about putting in an identified person they were taking well it doesn't matter if you put in an identified person is because it's the apartment residence you want to search and why was that important because very once it control guys were actually done in the residence we don't have that here we don't have that connection and that's the relevance is that there's no evidence that that there was ever drugs in the apartment and the most evidence that is short here even by inference is that fifty dollars went back into that apartment in a search warrant was conducted seven days later the when the court looks at the tec vision to falsify information has demonstrated truthfulness in the past has not given false information in the past so he's attesting libby is true so why would she believe that it was anyone that was doing this when he was told on three or four occasions you judge may please the court the district court correctly denied each of mr o'neill's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case i would like to discuss primarily the franks issues specific lee the one relating to the identity of the female involved in the controlled by to obtain a frank's hearing on that issue in his criminal case mr o'neill would have had to show that the allegedly false information was necessary to the finding of probable cause the narrow it's related to the specific identity of the female involved in the controlled by so consistent with ranks the district court asked without the specific identity of that person does the affidavit nonetheless establish probable cause  the government believes the district court was correct that it does based on the facts that judge loken discussed with mr dunn officers personally surveilled this controlled by the confidential informant made contact with someone near the residence they observed a female exit the rear of the building meet with the cia for a brief time then go back through the front door of the building and to the subject apartment based on those facts and then of course the c i then met with officers turned over the crack  this textual analysis of the war death and i believe that's right your honor that you know the briefs don't really make that they're very clear yeah i think that is the only basis for ineffective assistance so the you know we've got we've got multiple suppression claims separately stated but on this on this the franks  there is an argument there was an ineffective assistance for failing to make frank's motion so i assume the back and forth in the district court was if you made a motion to suppress you would have a company that would that request for my right yes my understanding of mr o'neill's argument is that his lawyer was the district court i did not handle this in the district court your honor the district court correctly analyzed this issue the frank's issue with respect to the identity of the female involved in the controlled by specifically by reading the affidavit as if it just referred to an unidentified woman tranks requires only that the false material be set aside the st material in this case in the affidavi t the allegedly fos material is limited to the specific identity of that female the district court complied with franks by disregarding that information and then asking whether the the remainder of the affidavit establish probable cause that analysis is consistent with how courts have address similar issues i cited the castro case from the th circuit in our brief that was a case where a tip actually came from an anonymous it was an anonymous tip but then in the affidavit the officer said this information came from a confidential informant which understandably those are two different things to confidential informant would suggest that there may be reasons that law enforcement trust this individual as opposed to an and then anonymous tip in that castro case the  or six circuit said the district court properly struck the references to the confidential informant and then read the affidavit as if it referred to in an anonymous source i think the the castro approach is essentially what the district court did here  affirmed the district court's decision to strike an entire paragraph of an affidavit but it did so because that entire paragraph was special reinhold was a case where a pharmacist provided information to law enforcement that mr reinhold had purchased iodine a far cry from the actual information the officer had which is just that a pharmacist reported this guy had purchased iodine tablets reinhold also refused to add omitted information back into the affidavit in that case the government said well ok if that information was false then the court should have supplemented the affidavit with information that we did not put in the affidavit that being that the pharmacist personally saw the defendant by tablets this court in r refused to supplement the affidavit with that information but the rationale is important in this case and reinhold the court this court said it would not supplement the affidavit with that omitted information because that omitted information but most are the probable cause in that case it would have paragraph was not passed the district court also did not add anything to the affidavit that bastard probable cause if anything it detracted from probable cause in this case because it removed the connection that melissa taylor had to the residence by by way of apartment wine if i understand what we are left with is an anonymous person leaving out of the back of the building on specific to which apartment and that person engaging in a drug sale and magistrate could have made a reasonable inference that somebody who leaves from the rear of an apartment building meets with a confidential informant sells that person drugs then goes back in through another door of the same building and goes into this apartment i think it would be a reasonable inference for the judge to conclude that that person probably came from the same apartment to begin with but even apart from that i think the relevant question whether it's ineffective assistance for drought council  ineffective the defendant needs to show that the suppression issue would have ultimately prevailed and in specifically on of pranks in the bronx context he needs to show that frank's hearing would have established that some information that was necessary to the probable cause finding and would need to be stricken that showing has not been made in this case and the district court correctly reached that conclusion i also wanted to touch on mr o'neill's claim that it was somehow in crack for the district court to read the  record does not support that claim mr dunn cited some of the detective janus as trial testimony detective keenest testified point blank at trial that he did not know definitively who this woman was he testified that the c identified this woman as and then he testified he did not have a last name he also testified though that he knew that taylor was the lessee on the apartment and in the affidavit he knew that melissa taylor had utilities in her name so i think or melissa taylor in those circumstances the government believes there was nothing improper about the district court's approach of reading an affidavit as if it referred to an unidentified woman or anything in the record in the tw think was a relative yeah there are pulled there's a police report in the record i know that subsequent to executing the search warrant officers discovered that the female identity prior to trial she was a relative meaning it strongly confirms that she at least that she went in that went into the apartment and increases the inference she came out of the apartment with their drugs trial as to mr o'neill's activities and the fact that she was assisting him with his distribution of crack cocaine so i think it's reasonable i guess to presume that defense counsel knew mascaras identity and her relationship to the defendant as this case was proceeding in the district court persist and can be revisited right in trial so it sounds like the trial testimony confirmed retroactive probable cause yes i think it certainly would note that the cited portions of the record do not support that claim they show at most that law enforcement identified the confidential informant via some surveillance activities and then utilized him to arrange a controlled by that kind material to probable cause in this case this court has consistently held that a confidential informants credibility is not material to probable cause when law enforcement has already corroborated the informant's information in this case the officers personally observed the controlled by the informant then immediately met with officers and turned over the drugs purchased during that by in those circumstances in light of the police scrub aeration of the by the informants general credibility was not material to if there are no additional questions on any of the other issues the government would rely on the brief and asked that the district court be affirmed see no additional questions like instantly q thank you d woman replacement like the district court wanted to do that's false they knew who it was it was either erin burnett or melissa taylor you can't make up somebody mean you can't put in fast information because you can't put an unidentified woman because they know it was aaron that the officer could have put erin in there anyone last name unlock unknown in this he didn't do it he puts milicic taylor so he could get a search warrant for that apartment just like his trial testimony says then and the government cites the castro case if the courts get reliant that i don't think the court can rely on that or for the defendant does not argue that probable cause was lacking if the district court's examination of the affidavit as it though the ship came through an anonymous source who's proper in any event there is probable cause because the guy left the house counsel fails to follow through with america moreas claim he's an effective and there's no trial strategy for that there's no trial strategy not to do the franks issue in this case there's nothing that we need to hear from him because it's clear cut  it's on and i say i had information to know that the motion would have to convince me that the motion would fail and then that would be unreasonable trust raji because the record here is clear that there was a lie that it was  which is to note that your representation today for the appellant is under the criminal justice act in court thank you for your willingness to serve america thank you