with the other cases went right and we all of the court watchers seem to think that we'll have a decision very shortly so i doubt we'll be doing anything here until we at least he procedure and what we're really asking for was a hearing in from the magistrate in our moving papers below then it was willing to testify that he was basically stopped outside of his apartment taken back to that the search was done at the behest of federal agents in other words that the state officials were doing this for the federal government i think the fact they go to the justice of the peace and  warrant they didn't arrest him pursuant to the search they arrested him on they could arrest him any time they storm or wherever they found him that's correct and they did arrest him outside of that then they allowed him basically to be put back in the apartment to be present during the search they were they were present during the questioning by the police as to whether anybody was any apartment and then he and then when he asked to see the warrant he refused and then they took him back what does this record reflect that the government did concerning the execution of the search warrant you're doing at rule forty one they have the man under arrest you have to show that they are involved in the execution of the search warrant bad a similar to rule forty one that would require the state officers to show the search warrant to the defendant under nevada law and that triggers the question of whether it's a fourth amendment issue not just a rule for one issue at that point and i think the keys at least in the circuit shows if there is a tie between the two that's another word that the fourth amendment is also triggered at that issue i think is me the ruling in the district court as to the lack of a test on the cop are requested for a mistrial or at least that that evidence be held that is when there was no the allegation is that the defendant was not left with a copy of the warrant or of the inventory at the end of the warrant it's our position as noted by the court that the search was not federal in character and that's our initial position why because this is a search warrant executed by local law enforcement officials the evidence by the las vegas metro a local law enforcement agency right why is not a fair assumption that you can ply you can imply from the federal participation in this i'll concur that there was some federal participation involved the social security agent was involved and filed the complaint in regard to the social security violation there was contact with the joint federal state agency but it's our position that this has not reached the level of the substantial involvement needed to make the warrant federal in character i don't think it's a fair assumption because it's our position that if it's done by local law enforcement as a result of a local warrant there are no federal agents involved in the seizure of the evidence and there's no federal agents involved in th lab technician following their procedures for testing at that point it's it's my understanding from the evidence to do use the trial that the  there's special circumstances for this highly toxic substance and it is not brought into court at a later time and we did not present it in court due to the nature of the substance and the danger that it could cause to everyone then destroyed except for the amount that is taken to the lab and tested which is then kept in a in a special location due to its nature involved show that this was done in good faith and it's reasonable justification i would also note once again that one of the one of the factors in the balancing test is one of the individuals federal officers and in this case we don't have any federal officers involved in the think i thought about it in regard to the federal involvement hanging involved i mean you have coordinated efforts which would indicate that the joint task force is kind of controlling the things in in that you have an arrest warrant being sought in the whether the federal prosecution which contemplated at the outset of the obtaining of the search warrant what you have here that reflects not fact i think that again it comes back to the multiply state gaming aspects of it