a nd so one of the things that i was wondering when i read this part of your brief was it seems to me that we reduce this issue to novo don't we don't we just need to decide you know vote now or south whether there was reasonable course that but what if we disagree i think i'm not sure we need to start at the district court exactly look at each piece of evidence with the correct weight don't we just need to decide whether there was reasonable suspicion and if so why isn't there reasonable ball kind of a boat kind of a that town council i just don't i just don't see how you can describe this as nothing more than speculation i mean he had opportunity he gave a false statement when he said according to that stor locker manager when he signed up he was there at a time when this could have occurred he had things that at the very least could have been stolen in the in the burglary so your client is over for a storage unit burglary with however you want to characterize it at least some reason to believe he might have been involved and i know you argue it doesn't amount to reasonable suspicion but the fact that he's in your client as a suspect i believe on march th but on march th she looked at the video she described the video and at least there's a superficial similarity between your client's appearance based on the mug shot that that was in the record and what she described she saw on the video why wouldn't that have some in fees or a liability beyond what what are her describe this  speculation and thomas that the fact that she looked at the video and added your client as a suspect at the time she's looking at the  out so how would you know the purpose of the exclusionary rule which is to deter police misconduct i was looking at the person who sees the to deter police misconduct as opposed to the person who creates the suspect designation doesn't the supreme court tell us that you have to look at the person who answers it into the system because if there's any misconduct in there stop the officer who  good afternoon your honor is binocular by my half of the united states may please the court i agree with appellate counsel that this is not a close case but for the opposite reason there was approached perry's car he knew no fewer than six factors that gave him probable cause st he knew that perry was at the scene of the crime around the time that the burglary likely occurred and this is because not only was the the storage unit inspected the night the day before at nine am but there was an additional fact that constantino knew that place burglary and time which was domingo the storage unit manager told constantino that she heard a firecracker go off that combined with the fact that constantine knew that a firecracker was one of the items that has been stolen places the burglary you know more specific any time than just within the last twenty four hours that the storage unit manager had seen perry pushing what appeared to be a black tool bag inside the trunk of the mercedes the black mercedes right near the storage unit when she went to in fact the broken specified and then he also proceeds to list a number of tools he says to constantino that over six thousand dollars worth of tools were stolen from the storage unit locker so it's certainly possible st i don't think that that information is is necessary for the district court to have made a finding that the suspect was ignition was reliable that it was example she added him as a suspect because she looked at the video and saw i've looked like the person in the video after looking at mug shot i mean i can't see any reason why the government wouldn't take that st that the government also did put in put in the full police reports and supplemental to that but your honor was referencing previously so a lot of all of that evidence was before the district court it was this report finds that deputy constantino had reviewed those documents by the time that he stopped kerry that morning and as your honor noted before those those documents have a clear connection to the burglary the deputy constantino was investigating that morning and i just like added the narrative a minute felt not only does it show the same storage unit company same county but it also shows that it was likely an inside job the the st with his code and then unclear exactly how he got all the proceeds out perhaps gins on him to cut the sentence later it's unclear from the record but certainly there was a connection there between the belmont burglary suspect but i mean i agree richard certainly look at the police reports but i think it would have been a lot clearer because as i put in my question to your colleague i believe that under hensley we we need to look at the basis for off a firecracker at nine thirty in the morning well that you know or any explanation he did not that's not in the record  as i'm sure you're right out of the district court did not consider that additional fact that perry admitted to fighting off a firecracker as there's an argument there or the bout was beyond the initial time period for that initial t and that was the case about an officer who really received a report from department of transportation employees that's relates the officer through the dispatch and the court considered that there and under the sort of rd party report  framework considered whether it was trustworthy and reliable where there were there were significant and vicious reliability such that the officer could rely on that information and certainly putting this case in the context of fernand