methamphetamine precursor in the unlawful possession of but amphetamine and she was sentenced to twelve and a half years in prison and the fall issues are raised on appeal the first issue she maintains that the search of a motel room that she rented was done without lawful justification that the evidence seized from that room should have been suppressed however the defendant's motion to suppress was denied the defendant prosecution's violation of two pretrial in women any more years so that evidence of marijuana found in the room was introduced to trial and evidence of other intruding statements found in the room reduce the trial d n a sample and pay a two hundred dollars fee to his requirements were spurs laws because she'd been ordered to do those things in conjunction with a prior conviction and win arguments today and when the focus is on the first issue involving the search of the motel room and the second issue involving the incriminating statements course of your honor's there are questions about the other issues i'd be happy to address those as well the prior to trial defense filed a motion to suppress evidence he saw property inside the room which appeared to be contraband so he wanted to solve searched and seize the property the prosecutor in the judge or he would that simply bind seeing that property from outside the boy because he's outside the room when he sees the property that doesn't necessarily get in inside the room you need separately will justification so that yes consent or a warrant or exigent circumstances trial suppress show that at some time before indiana was released from prison the department of corrections realized that her offense was really quite a swan and in fact they gave her sentence president she would not have been allowed to receive  class one clearly they were obligated to pass that information on to their parole officer and not to allow him to continue to monitor deanna for more than two years so either the the parole officer was guilty of reckless or gross negligence or the department was guilty one way or the other the friends with the exclusionary rule should be applied and this incident should have been suppressed and a clearly either gross recollection or reckless negligence and i think that's enough in this case also i think there's a possibility that if it if it was allowed to happen in this case it could possibly rise in another case one of the problem it seems here is that is is is there was not sufficient evidence presented to show was that the department of corrections the did not adequately advises fro us or if perhaps the department didn't the parole officer role if you can use a monitor we just don't know that what we do know is clearly the parole term expired and we know that the department of corrections realized that it was only a two year term before she was released deal see now it's an interesting question because again we didn't get into too many details here you would almost expected testimony along the lines of what was a parole officer i received my and this is what they tell me or this is how i found that find out oh i have a no new broom a lead a monitor and now i know how i'm told how much time since you do want to miss or is he left on his own to figure all that out as he said oh officer the judge or the statements made to the parole officer because they had not been preceded by miranda warnings but he allowed the statements made to the police officer because they were preceded by miranda warnings in because there was some gap in your honor's question about and how i believe this if it if the corrections officer or officer was negligent himself then he should know that but if he was just doing his job by somebody else think that under the under the circumstances i don't think that and i i don't think of course the record will gervase out i don't think the agent here probably if you ignore anything forth with a corrective information it could have probably put him unnoticed or at least maybe required him to do something more than what he did here but i think in the circumstances here i think this case it's quite well with in good faith  has to be attached to something there has to do something already there that allows the individual of the officer to be able to have the right of access to get an object in this particular case both of those in other cases you know the situation the record here is clear the question here with respect to the ultimate conclusion is a question of law so basically this court can make its own learn this case is one where the office of the agent remember why he was going there is was there to see defendant knock on the door she wasn't there for solving our car as we saw the fact that he sees the drug as a result certainly prejudice from the admission of the statements and do they constitute a reversible error with respect to issue one in the search of the motel room i believe counsel those are you that well we don't really have enough evidence to know that well the i think i actually believe he handles it and i don't know and we don't know that that's part of the problem here counsel talks about people who work but there was no specific testimony about what the paperwork is correctional officer just no there's no need because i'm i'm ruling based on plain view so that was really the primary basis for his ruling i think he treated with service to the states good faith argument by saying well this is such a