court michel and be on behalf of the united states i would like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal and united states firstly on the supreme court held that for the exclusionary rule to apply the benefits of appreciable deterrence of police misconduct must outweigh the substantial social cost of suppressing inherently trustworthy evidence that is to say that when object officers act in objective lee reasonable reliance on an approved warrant suppression is unwarranted and this case lies within the heartland of that exception because the affidavit already authorized at issue here reflected substantial police investigation corroborating and formants tip that the residence to be searched was being used in a list that drug activity the district court to mid legal air and suppressing the evidence obtained pursuant to the hadley wrote search warrant because it refused to apply the  specifically when evaluating whether suppression was appropriate the district court mistakenly read the affidavit as a critic with a divide and conquer approach focusing on what was missing or who have been at it rather than as this court has instructed reading it reasonably that is to say holistically in view of whether the totality of the circumstances provided any modicum of evidence however slight connecting the premises to the legal drug activity properly viewed this affidavit certainly passes muster it contains a witness is listed allegation that drugs have been observed in the residence that witness as the affidavit in itself makes plain had been proven reliable in that same investigation as the informant other allegations including her selling of marijuana in the glen way avenue business had been corroborated that very day while the district court cast the informant's information even a well trained officer holding an approved warrant in hand is not expected to second guess the weight as opposed to the existence of evidence suggesting a nexus to the to the place to be searched that's the teaching of the cases such as white and hines any evidence however slight of a connection between the criminal activity and the place to be searched is sufficient to support reasonable reliance on the warrant this factual predicate supports the application of the longest stablished excepted inference by this court set out in cases such as kenny megan's william and more recently in white that a defendant engaged in drug activity can be presumed to store the contraband in his home particularly where other facts known to the police also cast suspicion on the residence that is because the affidavit reflects the officers knowledge not only that the defendants had drug trafficking criminal histories and that heard was arrested on that very day with multiple bags of marijuana where the informant said he sells the drugs but also  informant had personally seen the contraband inside the home thereby setting this case apart from the decision of brown that the dish report mistakenly right to live on as the supreme court held in leon such reasonable good faith reliance on a search warrant is precisely what makes suppression on morning leon instructs that the flagrant see a police misconduct is relevant to the exclusion calculus but here there is nothing of the sor affidavit reflects fresh substantial police investigation that corroborated the informants and information as in hines the facts here do not suggest any fears of police misconduct of judge guy doesn't make any difference that the officer securing the search warrant is also the affiant and also the person who executes the search warrant in other  words got a good faith reliance on his own affidavit in some respects your honor i believe in the decision hines the court held that the fact that the same officer secured the x participated in the execution of the search is rather irrelevant to the application of the good faith exception it doesn't bar application just because the same officer participated in  the question is whether the four corners of the affidavit combined with the information known to the magistrate provided any connection or any monochrome evidence tying the premises to be searched w defendants here do not even attempt to label this affidavit as their bounds as the information in campaigns is certainly not of a conclusory or on found in nature on the contrary the warrant here involves a lot of work  information supporting a well trained officers reasonable realize it contains several specific factual allegations not mere beliefs or conclusions tying the home to the defendant's criminal activity that's what sets this case apart from the cases relied on by the defendant such as weaver and helped in those cases as this court has presented classic bare bones affidavits that were unsupportive by any meaningful police investigation not so here now the panel directed the parties to united states first kenny and that case supports the government's position as uncanny the officers here had sufficient reason to believe that the search of the residence would reveal evidence of the drug crime in large part because heard was arrested that very day in possession of marijuana and the police investigation corroborated the tip that heard  hadley road president just can't distinguish this court's earlier case in macpherson so too did the government distinguish that case here and that's the page twenty eight of our brief because the affidavit confirmed that that tied her to actual drug trafficking as opposed to simple possession the affidavit set out that both defendants had prior trafficking offenses and that the informant allege that they were currently involved in trafficking and would that was corroborated by the arrest on the same day as the search to the excuse me now the defendants may argue that more allegations of trafficking in the residen necessary but that flies in the face decisions uncanny and the accepted inference that the very least once police know a suspect is actively involved in drug activity there is reason to believe such contraband will be found  residence moreover as the recent crimes decision makes clear even when officers cooperate in an activity from an informant that can be sufficient to render other information in the tip credible and that's exactly what happened here other allegations made by the informant worker operating in significant part on that same day the hadley wrote affidavit was supported therefore by substantial current and fresh police investigation that tied the defendant to the residence and both to the legal drug activity a neutral judge presented with these facts found that there was probable cause for the search under leon and this court's precedents and given the existence of supporting factual allegations showing a nexus to the premises the cincinnati police officers were permitted to reasonably rely on the approved morning the district court counsel has done to batchelor so have you conceded that there was not in fact probable cause to search the residen minds can differ on that but unnecessary to resolve this case and to require reversal thank you unless there's any further questions  take issue with much of the government's presentation this case as the district court found involves an affidavit that is both insufficient on its face and does not qualify for the leon exception raised by the government the reason being and again as the district court found that the government the affidavit excuse me failed to establish or to tie those two defendants to the residence headley road residence which is required by the cases  relied on by the government the county case that the court referred us to is specifically distinguished by the brown case u s p brown in two thousand and sixteen on the grounds that the county case had far more corroboration than a case such as this one and also involved major weight in the candy case methamphetamine not only distribution but the actual laboratory the manufacture of the methamphetamine was the building where the defendant was standing us and guns there were there were numerous recorded conversations between the informant and the defendant here we've got none of that we've got an anonymous informant his first used by the police and he does not tie either codefendant to that residence all they've got is the mr heard car outside the residence and a piece of mail from my client mr mccoy found inside the residence or somewhere in the case that does not have an address they don't the government doesn't tell us what address  that piece of mail the informant does not allege that he thought any trafficking at the residence only that the other two were drug traffickers there's no controlled buys that i'm aware of the only actual contraband found on anybody is my client's codefendant who was found with a small quantity of marijuana by police at a different location nearby locations other deficiencies or defects are that there no nothing in the record that i'm aware of or at least the record on appeal that stablish is how stable for how long ago the conviction for either defendant is so brown  it was found relevant at the drug drug trafficking conviction of that defendant was twelve years old another was stable and was not of any help to the government in its search warrant efforts so this case has literally none of the things that have been found sufficient another leon exception case the defendants aren't tied to the residence at all there's no traffic angle they should be going on at the residence there's no contraband package for sale no controlled by no major wait major operation a no evidence that these methods convicted of trafficking within a timeframe the courts have found not to be stale that being the case the district courts reasoning is sound relies on proper precedent the k when he was found miles away from the home and session a quantity of marijuana in his pocket that was so small he could not even be arrested for it alone it was a minor misdemeanor atemporal in a contextual anonymous tip that i didn't hadley house did not demonstrate any sort of a reliable connection that would then produce a belief in the mind of a reasonable officer that there would presently be contraband found at that and ok but there there was the confidential informant who said that they that he lived at the residence well that that was going to be my next point your honor this was not a confidential informant this was an anonymous tip ster and the case law is a lot of cases here points out there's a big difference between the two we have an anonymous tipster here where there's no indication that the officer knew the name certainly no indication that the name was known and that makes a big difference because somebody who's anonymous doesn't have the same fears of prosecution if they give that up that information also that person isn't subject himself to criminal prosecution by way of disclosing what they've seen or what they may have been involved in the past but are if if i could just interrupt for a second but the tipsters description of the of what would be found at the at the barbershop was corroborated there were things found in the barbershop that corroborated what the tipster had had said is that not correct very i would say only very minimally the information found at the barber shop corroborate what the tipster said is there was marijuana being sold and i think it's a mis characterization by the government to say that there was an indication of the proof of him selling at the barber shop what was found was was two ounces of marijuana in mr hurd's pockets there was no indication it was selling that marijuana in fact as i stated that marijuana is such a small quantity that he can even be for that amount because it is a minor misdemeanor in ohio and only subject to a two essentially expectation for that so there was no yes that there was a vehicle at the at the residence that was registered to mr hurd but there was no corroborate by any of the surveillance that was mr hurd that left the car there there was no indication that that registration that the car was registered to that address in other words  there was there was no proof that that was mr hurd to address given in the registration there and there was surveillance of that home mr hurd was never seen in or around that home so really the only connection was a car parked outside that that was registered in his name not enough of a of the corroborate that that would be needed to connect up the very minor criminal activity observed at the barbershop to the residence and that's the issue here is that the the that anonymous tipster zz information was corroborated only in a very small way and not to the place that was being searched to another business mr hurd would argue that if anything the observations found at the barbershop would cause a reasonable officer to have doubt about the validity of the confidential informants information now there was a confidential informant is saying that the anonymous tipster i've even made a mistake the anonymous tipster is putting forth evidence that there is a drug selling operation going on at the barber shop  only thing the officers find there is a few hundred dollars and a few ounces of marijuana and they don't find anything else that's indicative of a of a of an operation that was explained by the anonymous tipster again this would cause great concern in the mind of a reasonable officer and they can think about whether or not this information provided by the tipster was correct and in fact that's  what we've seen here is that the officer hesitated in asking for a search warrant of the hadley address likely because it was all the information provided by the tipster supported the search of the business and officer believed rightfully so that there was a nexus between or that there was an information to support the search of the business but when nothing was really found there a centrally support the the anonymous tipster is information that there was drug sales going on the officer basically was on a fishing expedition attempting to search that oil so our position here is the other thing the court should look at is the a temporal nature of the information provided by the anonymous tipster another words it wasn't that the anonymous tipster said up i saw guns marijuana and cash at that residen yesterday or last week there was no indication as to when that was seen so we may have a situation that's as outlined in a lot of the other cases we're looking at where it could have been eight months it has been twelve months it could have been a period of time that would have made this stale and again a reasonable officer wouldn't have a reason to rely on information that was even eight months old as far as connecting the information and evidence as identified informant versus anonymous informant it's certainly clear that this affidavit goes with an identified informant but that's frequently the case and search warrant in the proceedings relative to the motion to suppress and the district court the government at some point did you establish on the record that they did not know at the time and still don't know who this person was i do not believe it was established on the record that the government or the officer knew the name of the confidential informant or the anonymous tips sorry you're saying it wasn't established yes exactly ok thank you so we don't we don't know for sure that this is an an dormant well we we don't have any information to believe that the name was known therefore it was an anonymous tipster for all intents and purposes there's no reason to assume that the officer knew the name of the person or knew the reliability of the person and that's exactly what the what the authority says is that if we look at the help in case no reason lost it would afford much weight to an anonymous tipst information provided arguably dispute the validity of the anonymous tipster is information because there wasn't anything in six of the large scale truck drug operations going on that set it off with that officer longworth  tipster rather than a confidential informant whose reliability we know something about so so essentially we have an officer relying on unreliable information on something from that from an anonymous tipster so our position or even indicating that the ready drug sales going on in or around the residence or that there was anything being stored in the residence that would be part and parcel with the drug sales that were alleged by this no longworth as my colleague said did testify at the suppression hearing and the government's view would be that it is somewhat ambiguous as to what the record actually reflects it is true i can say even if it's not reflected in the record  this was not a bare bones case bones affidavit in which the police just took the tip at face value and proceeded to secure a search warrant rather there was an independent investigation that was fruitful that on the same day traced mr hurd to the business where the informant said he would be distributing drugs and found multiple bags  least indicative of trafficking as opposed to personal use and the search of the glen way avenue business is bolstered that conclusion where you want where the officers found electronic scales packaging equipment and munition and john paraphernalia that seems somewhat out of place for a barber shop or athletic store so even if the  you treat the informant as initially unreliable and anonymous the information provided by that person was deemed credible and corroborated by the investigation and also that goes to the fact that the defendants resided at the residence the informant specifically said that the hadley road residence was the residence of mr hurd and mr mccoy and that was corroborated at least in part by the vehicle registered to mr hurd parked in the driveway that same day that for purposes of the leon good faith exception that is the fish in this court  many things in terms of timing but the fact that the corroboration occurred on the same day that it does not matter that the age of their prior convictions is not in the affidavit when mr court's order thank you thank you counsel case will be submitted stephanie if you could just verify when the attorneys have disconnected