june th two thousand and sixteen in a search of a home at nine o eight east th tears in raytown that location is not even close to the vicinity of any of  eyes the information at that time was evidence which you can see the evidence was sufficient to indicate he construct control of the residence and could be in constructive possessions of items contained in a i think that's going to be the government's contention your honor however i think the evidence really opposite of that they're going to say that he had exclusive possession of that present the police witnesses in this case testified that it's objects on that house child exit at the residence on another occasion and the evidence with in the residence where the gun was actually found was on top of a cabinet in the kitchen the drugs that were found in this case were in a washer and dryer and dryer actually in a completely separate room in the government's contention was basically that exclusively somehow that's his house and the only evidence that that there was no there was never anything established by the government in any way whatsoever as to who owned the house it was a rental agreement for the house there were no utility bills in the house there was mail to mr white there was items of clothing that a detective testified to that would be system with mr white but none of those clothing none of those clothes were ever inventory we have no idea what size they were that's a spot check in a closet to say those clothes belong to him  also bicycles in the garage it would be consistent with that child that left the house in for those reasons i think it's just a huge leap to think that there was sufficient evidence to prove that somehow he exercised dominion and control over a gun it's in a situation in a house that there's no other proof that he was the exclusive owner often of that house when there's where's your proof of any competing owner occupant renter it was it was really any alternative proof not saying that you were preoccupied to put it on but just saying does the record reflect that that that some ambiguity about who might have anything like that so we have no idea yeah right that's the governor knew of it being where was on top of a shelf his bedroom was a separate better there was another bedroom in the house that was a bad impart of the government's argument is that this general idea of the guns are there to protect your drugs or your drug trade and i'd say the opposite when you've got a firearm it's a kitchen cabinet in your kitchen i would think the gun would be very close proximity and here there is in addition there was some paraphernalia i guess that was near the firearm so i guess you your main argument here is that there's just no control it it's not so much that that there's couldn't be some connection between the farm and drugs if there's drug paraphernalia and drugs actually in the residence your argument is you just the government just didn't make the case for constructive possession that it's very on the down the drug track to follow up on the drug trafficking part of it was in the gun found right next to a scale with white powdery residue the cheap mentioned the argument for my client would be his that that that argument the evidence simply isn't sufficient to support that somehow that firearm of that kitchen  second issue i want to talk about is the the district courts the nile overruling our objection to the admission of evidence during an illegal search of a vehicle mr white was in on march th of two thousand and thirteen first i'd like to point out that on that day the court relied upon on two things in their ruling in denying a motion to suppress that one there was no expectation of privacy in the rental vehicle and i would concede at the time i believe that suppression and i didn't try to pressure the public defender's office at that time but at that time i think the law was established in a circuit that there was no expectation of privacy in a rental i believe that that law has been changed by now a supreme court case and byrd  which which furthers the argument that it's not about authorization question is lawful was an action i think that pace shifts the burden to the government to show that somehow he was in unlawful  split in the circuits and that supreme court case i think solidifies the issue that it's not about whether you had a word to be in or whether you were off almost going to a a land or home possession or yes and i think by being in the vehicle and there being no other means of him being in that field illegally he was bought only well you said that the government needs to come come forward something something else and i was trying to challenge that i don't know that the government had to come forward anything else necessarily because it was your burden to prove it but you know even more fundamentally on the bird case my understand the bird cases it is that essentially held that that somebody who is not named on a rental agreement  but has the consent of the the named renter could still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle such that the the search would you know they would have standing to challenge the search i don't know if it goes as far as you suggest what's your best argument or best what i don't know what that means myself i'm assuming that it's a rental agreement like a standard or in the agreement but it wasn't filled in with names or that was that would be my assumption so how did you how did you meet your burden of proof then of showing standing if in fact it was  it didn't contain his name it didn't contain anything that he was in the vehicle that it was an otherwise stolen wasn't otherwise fraud the fraud to say i think you're i think you're shifting the burden of proof to the government at that point because i think that there's nothing to say that that he was lawfully in possession we just don't know we have no idea whether he was unlawfully lawful possession because there's not a rental room with his name on it there's not you know there's not a sign no firm whoever has the car i mean if you've got nothing here i think maybe i'm  wrong it again i would yeah i think the bird case does say that if you're in possession of be able that in that itself is a no that would be my right but their birds pacifically seems to say that it doesn't cover the possibility of protecting these stolen a car so that there would seem to be some obligation to indicate that one has a lawful possession well in my point being is that not the key so i wonder if he had the keys to support your argument that and to be honest i don't know the answer i think that the record would be that he was driving the vehicle for a period of time he turned into one location and went to another location never addressed the issue of whether there was any probable cause to offer the church i'd simply argue on that that it was a pretextual search why isn't probable cause the simplest way to resolve  didn't have intelligence he was dealing drugs and found him with a big amount of cash in that is true but the but never got that decision made their decision on they just yeah they but the government says we should defer it could affirm all on that ground what's your thought on whether there was probable cause what that time they had information from a confidential witness who said he might have drugs they pulled him over he's got passion or that we did that  two thousand and thirteen that was three years before he's controlled by well i mean confidential informants can be a probable cause sometimes i guess we'd have to look exactly what they have from the s three weeks ago reaffirms that post byrd the defendant has a burden to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in a in a rental car and we think that the district court here didn't make a play a concluding that that burden had been met here and i think that's the right result for a couple reasons here we have unlike the cases in byrd where there was some evidence of the nd order permission so the rental car company didn't give permission for the defendant in that case to be driving the car that's the holding of bird that they don't need it but in that case there was permission from the person who was authorized to drive a car the same thing is true and bet it in this court court's recent case but here we have something totally different here we have a person who is merely in possession of the car mere possession of the car can't be enough to show a reasonable expectation of privacy because there's no distinction that of course is that touch too broad a gauge th no distinction between that person and a person who got the car by by theft or the suggestion and bird maybe that by fraud on the rental company so that merely having a rental agreement in the car isn't enough to push that inference beyond mere possession to a place where we can make it a claim about reasonable expectation of privacy because the rental agreement here doesn't establish that permission from the real company w owns the car there's the there's the record explain what a blank rental agreement is your honor i pulled a copy of the transcript from the trial at this suppression hearing what we have is the underlying police report that was introduced in evidence it talks about the link rental agreement that's all it says at trial there's a little bit more on page eighty seven the officers ask you any idea whose car was in that day it was a rental question you have any idea who rented that car he says no you have any did anyone investigating relate who rented the car who says i did not and then he says i do recall the rental agreement was blank there was no name or anything on it so that's that's where i can direct the court to for more information about what the rental agreement said what we know is it's not the kind of rental agreement that would establish contractual obligation and permission from the rental company the owner ultimate owner of the car and to the to the defendant and i would say further to the extent that the court is willing to accept an inference from the blank rental agreement i think to that extent the nd circuit's case and while still has some force even though it's been distinguished by this court in betis because that is there was this permission and the court said well just unlawfully driving the car doesn't negate your of reasonable expectation of privacy  the car but here the lack of the of the driver's license indicates that what lyle is talking about the fact that a company is going to rent a car to somebody who's been caught driving without his license was suspended six or seven times to the extent that this defendant has i think defeats any remaining inference that can be drawn from point so following that what we have is just the defendant in possession of the vehicle and in a failure a failure of proof on the defendant's part to show that his expectation of privacy in a car was reasonable that he had a lawful possession of it and for that reason i think that the court and i make one additional point about the burden there's actually two different reasons the defendant has the burden didn't do so i would say there's no player in the court can affirm on that reason alone i will spend a little bit of time talking about the policy i think that the wasn't discussed here but i think there's about implied consent that everyone in the public can pull onto private property and that means that there was implied consent and we had to show some further removal of consent or taking away from the center complaint and the governor would suggest that  instead here the difference between that scenario that the governor that the defendant is describing and what happened here is the only reason the defendant was on the property to begin with was because that's where he decided to drive when the officers turned on their lights and pulled him over so it's not a situation where he had some prior business relationship with the property owners or he had purchased parking there or he had some personal relationship that the parking was a mission was implied it was purely a situation where he just drove there in  lastly on the th amendment issue i would spend just a little bit of time we did raise that issue about probable cause we think there's ample probable cause here we think that the addition of the confiden well he's driving around in a white dodge avenger and it has these kind of plates on it and that's what the officer crime rates that testimony or that that statement from the confidential informant by his observation of the defendant he's identified as bebop getting into a car meeting description of what the confidential informant told him he'd be driving so we think that shows that piece of the piece of the evidence added together with the arresting officer the officer who pulled him over testified  sue the i think that maybe you focusing on the issue a little bit i don't think there's an issues with the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime we have the court to review the video if there's a question about this but what the kitchen is here they find the gun which is loaded next to that scale with the white powder residue on it and then the next adjacent room immediately on the wall after that there's the drugs guns and drugs together and why it is important for go for drug dealers you can't call the police to have guns available to their stash we know in fact there was cocaine and in the room next door and summarize the government making a call to to the defendant to order crack cocaine and they observed the defendant leaving his house at the same time so the idea that there was some you know the defendant was never in a place where he could further his drug trafficking problem with that  weapon because he never had guns at any of the points where they found him or did a controlled by i think is somewhat belied by the fact that at the time that they saw the other person there was the time that they saw the defendant leaving to perform a dr i would point the court to you there's no direct evidence to the quarter point about whether they were staying the night there there was of course new mail found in any other person's name there were no women and children's clothes there so so those are council against that conclusion at the time that the other person the other a male was seen there it was a situation where that male was coming in and out of the residence there were other people standing outside and shortly there after the defendant left to make this drug that the i guess one further point i would make about that is that this is a question of where all of the reasonable inferences from the evidence are going to be taken in the government's favor and in support of the verdict and the question for this court is there any reasonable jury given all those i've got a couple minutes left i'll move on just have one or two things to say about the confrontation clause but if there's no additional questions on the sufficiency the only thing i would say about the confrontation cause is to point the court to the case spencer case is very closely aligned with the facts here same situation where a confidential informant was making calls on the directing directed by an officer to the defendant to set up drug transactions and the court said that that i didn't violate the constitution caused those calls on the part of the defendant or confrontational because they were admissions of a party upon him and as for the other discussion it was necessary to explain what was going on when the defend it was saying that