to the court that this is a fairly straightforward appeal in the sense that the facts are not really in dispute and the law is pretty well defined the question is as you know in your de novo review you believe that the objective facts in this case support a fair probability that drugs would have been found in that vehicle at that particular time and that's the key from the rogers case that we relied upon heavily the key being in that vehicle at that time not particularly particularly its place not whether or not mr fogg i may have recently entered into a drug conspiracy not whether or not he was associating with mr penny tiny who was a known drug dealer but i'm not night based on what the agencies knew did the objective facts support of finding that there was a fair probability that there would be drugs in that vehicle on that night and so that's really what this appeal is about when you look at the facts th facts are not really in dispute it's not a credibility contest it's not a matter of whether the agents were believable our position has always been you take what the agencies say at face value and they're still not enough probable cause there's not really a factual dispute here and he lives about where he came from no no no no dispute on that score no dispute about that but the important thing is and we would as we did in our brief you know the agents had a hunch that there was going to be a drug trying transaction taking place they had a pretty good well the artist's speculation and a hunch based off of conversations earlier in the day that said eight something about they were doing their jobs i mean you know they were so they had a hunch that a drug transaction may be taking place so they went and they observed it as they should the difference is when they went to observe it they didn't see anything further that would confirm that hunch to make it more than just a hunch if you look at the rogers case it's very similar in the sense that what the court and roger said the officer was locking they saw him walking to talking to the driver that's why he's on the he's on the passenger si against a concept that a drug deal is taking place or confirmation of it because if you're doing a drug they're not going to stay there for half an hour and talk to the guy through a couple of facts to see would you take  under sputum that that's what the police said now if you see if there's going to be a drug delivery and you see your client leading into the automobile of the liver and you don't see anything on him and he's arrived by car we would have reasonable suspicious agent think the drugs were but in your shoes but in your client's car you have to go back to your initial statement that it's undisputed that tool's means drugs i will it is clear that  agent lee maine that had that hunch had made that leap and that speculation and that's what it meant but and that's enough for him to go and investigate but that doesn't mean that tool's means drugs it means that what was in the agent's head when he goes to watch to this were other pendle then tony or your agent in the construction business my client was in the construction business i believe that we're you evidence that he was really looking for tools to work from  the government's burden to show that automobile exception applies and the government put forth no objective facts to show that there was anything more than a hunch on the part of the the agents well if if there was a delivery of drugs and your men didn't have them on him in the view of the jews and you know by car and he'd been there for half an hour isn't it reasonable to think that you meant to put them in the car in the car that's why i was but i was talking about the rogers case and what they said in the rogers case this court said in the rogers case is in that case they needed something more they had an idea right but they needed something more like in the rogers case for example they said they would have needed to have seen in furtive movements or you wouldn't  seen the person trying to conceal something or they would immediately have seen in plain view something that resembled the identification that they later went to search for and that's what our position is missing here they had a hunch that a drug transactions going to take place  you know you know the agents will say that there's obviously legal and code words that people use in drug organizations but not particularly if there's not a slang synonym for example no there is to i don't believe so and there and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that he was thank you thank you talking about you know suspicious sounding conversations maybe if you have a suspicious mind and then they see nothing they don't see a handoff and you know what they have well you honor to put this into context this involved investigation that occurred over a four month period began in july wiretaps since august this event occurred on november fifth so it was near the end of that investigation sounds to me like you didn't come up with anything for months of cuts against you or your honor just the day before prior to this event five pounds of methamphetamine was seized from pena to his career in his reply brief isn't i remember going to an opinion like that twenty five years ago or you're exactly that's iraq exactly correct but what we're saying is it gets context so that when we look at these isolated events not by itself but in likely than not yes you're on are you saying you think that's what i'm asking well let's look let me give you an example the first time they were meeting before they set up that meeting he was introduced by one of his primary associates julius mitchell any yourself that's why i asked my question you just repeated what you said earlier i said drug dealers kind of half innocent conversations with people the question is the fact that he was introduced by somebody who was involved in drug dealing of itself create any kind of suspicion but not it has to be something about the introduction it has to be something about a transaction that that suggests suspicion what was it about that transaction what further after and the defendant replies yes automatic because he knew of pentatonix concern at a time is a leader of a drug trafficking organization it's a risky business he's concerned about who knows what he's doing so he's confirming with the defendant make sure you come by yourself and the defendant already knows that's a concern because he says yes automatic not only that once they have that meeting that attorney calls julius mitchell and confirms hey is this guy trustworthy or are you sure he's not going to do me wrong and four hours after that meeting the three me to get an attorney and the defendant appropriate age now the sequence of events is six days subsequent to that meeting that's when michel sends a text message to penn attorney him going to costco and copulate i'm going to get some food do you want some food meet me there so you know there could have been the disk the distribution of jokes because if they're meeting again a couple a six days later that could be that the defendant is paying the money back for the drugs which which which is why he determined the code for word no right after that meeting four hours after the meeting a couple lay and the government apologize because during the suppression hearing all the people in that courtroom i'm late right yes between the two yes they're the only ones that use the word tools it was the defendant who raised it and then put a tiny apologize for the delay for bringing the tools and he also mention that he lost ten large which was based on his conversation today that meant that he lost ten thousand dollars think everyone knows what an orange means yeah and so you know what was peculiar about that conversation is  text message before you said no yes it was because he mentioned to it that his girlfriend because of his girlfriend he lost ten thousand large letters but this isn't this isn't some reference to some known fact correct w but i'm just asking you know the reason why the reason is because in a normal conversation when somebody talks about losing ten thousand dollars that would be a topic for discussion but after pen know it's unusual that what i'm saying is it's out of context and it's unusual these conversations and that's what alerts the agents ten thousand dollars you lose ten thousand you're going to talk about it thank you you know this time thank you o ur position is you know the fourth amendment can't be so watered down that if you have some unusual suspicious conversations you meet with somebody and talk with them for a while that there  doesn't mean a week later that we have a fair probability to believe that there's a fair probability that we're going to find drugs in his car at that particular time which is what the rogers case stands for you know i just wan that there were drugs in the car and that's moment in time it is not your position i would clarify that by saying not that they have probable cause but i think we can say they had a hunch maybe they had speculation that drugs were being discussed and there but of the things we emphasize in our brief is that most they had a reason to believe that my client may have joined this drug trafficking organization last week that in and of itself then doesn't transfer to having probable cause to search that vehicle on that night at that particular time and that's not the right one a truck cept for purposes of this question that in fact there is we look at that and we conclude that is probable cause to believe that we're talking about in that location at that time and just because somebody may be sarcy just so you think if you don't see your hand off something you did looks like a hand off you can't you don't have position now no matter how suspicious or not going that far more saying in this case you need something more than what they had they had a hunch that there may have been a drug transaction going on but there was nothing further to confirm it to raise the hunch to probable cause where they could go and search the vehicle ok that's that's that's our our position thank you thank you i just saw you was there some of the