in atlanta and judge logo is in miami and we have four appeals that are scheduled for roll argument this morning the court appreciates your cooperation council and scheduling you in confining your arguments to the issues on appeal mr geddes is the court room deputy and she will serve as the time keeper and she will alert you when your time to argue has expired and before that when there are two minutes left to your allotted time and so we are ready to begin our st argument it is the united states of america versus mig the camry was until after the knock and talk not have probable cause to arrest the driver before that violation in doing so the district court erred as a matter of law because probable cause does not require that the office statement that's very interesting to me obviously due to it's a problem because if you see a person committing a robbery and they come out of the store even though you don't know who they are you have probable cause to arrest of her the book or correct yes ok in this case what evidence you have because i read director as did all the other judges is what evidence you have that miguel explain was the individual who look and investigate if anybody was in the car still officer ross at the time thought that the individual who was driving the car was a rajai jackson correct in fact he pulled up a picture and said one hundred percent jackson he actually didn't have any indication that it was rajai jacket before he pulled up the picture when he pulled up the picture which was a out dated picture in which roger action had a different hairstyle similar to the hairstyle that explain currently had he so i ended up i understand i understand the record they had no idea who it was i understand that but the question is when you need to have do you have to have something to show of probable cause that there is a person in that house that committed an offense i don't think that they needed any polka that the person in the house committed the offense but they had to have probable cause to believe that the driver of the camry committed a crime and at that point they had probable cause to address the driver of the camry and the only benefit that officers got from the th amendment violation was the opportunity to take into custody the person that they saw commit the crime the driver of the camry which is the same it damage that the officers got in harris as a result of their  th amendment violation in harris but let's talk about harris apparently is an interesting case and parents when they show up to the house they actually know that harris is wanted for murder they're actually looking for the individual harris correct correct at some point in the record there's a statement that the camry was stolen but then a neighbor says and this is why they think it's jackson a neighbor says that camry belongs to the owner of the based on the record what we know from the record is that when the officers encountered the camera on the team before the not to talk violation they ran the plates and the plates came back as being reported stolen is there cause to believe that the car was still in the office and still seen the driver of the camry from them after they turn on their lights they have probable cause in maryland became in that case they took the swab for purposes of identification for was part of the booking process and under the florida statute if a person in this case is arrested and brought in for a felony person for that or that you can get another warrant a search of another warrant to take another swab which is what in fact what they did in maryland the king is not the correct is correct but in maryland the king they ran out so you have a two minute warning  is relevant to the booking process because in booking a an arrestee who already has a diminished expectations of privacy coupled with the fact that he was a probation he was not allowed to possess a firearm that was information that was relevant t of the just how the circumstances this is a demand then search again some of you don't know how doesn't get the government doesn't get to do a constitutional violation just because if you had done or correctly it would have been a constitutional violation i understand that it was not what i was trying imply i was trying to argue is that under the top of the circumstances when you look at if this was a reasonable search it was a reasonable search given mcswain diminished expectation of privacy in his d n a in his person as a result expectation of privacy in the fact that he was not supposed to use the internet the officer were allowed to take a warrant less time to conduct warrantless searches of computer so the fact that there is not a search provision  insufficient to establish probable cause starting with the st point before the th amendment violation the only information the officers knew about the identity of the driver was based on seeing the car drive by quick importantly the body it that was played at the suppression hearing shows that when the officers arrived at unit a they were looking for a black man with short hair who was maybe wearing a t shirt that type of generalized description described hundreds if not thousands asked my my my question is would you concede that is what officer roster officer courage to show up and they asked the neighbor did you see anybody and they say that the individual said i thought the person run out of that car they come out of the bank they have the bag they jump in the car there's a car chase you lose them but doesn't you see them jumping and they get into a into a building and run into a building even though you don't know who that person is is your belief that may have probable cause but if they're in their home i think also you cannot enter the home to effect way an arrest absent as in circumstances without an arrest warrant but if they saw the driver running then they would have probable cause at that  point based on the of the space on scene the individual run into the building or into their home so turning back here obviously that didn't happen here they only saw the driver drive by quickly and when they got to the unit he drove by and we know from the body count but it is the only gleaned generalized information that describes hundreds of individuals if the information that what this a con they they say that they could recognize it also says that they could recognize the driver if type of i know it when i see it statement can't establish particularized probable cause indeed have the officers went to a magistrate judge and asked for a warrant and in their applications that they saw a black man with short hair lean and they know him if they saw him again later no magistrate judge would have issued a warrant based on such a generalized description even if we could consider that type of testimony under the harris framework it's insufficient to establish probable cause so in of the two points i'd really like to emphasize here is one they lack the killer i suspicioned before the th amendment violation which is evident by the description on the body camp but it's when they arrive at you know in a into that testimony that they can recognize and if they see him later assuming we can even consider it it's wholly insufficient to establish particularize probable cause i'd like to quickly turn to the d n a issue obviously if the court agrees this report that harris does not apply here it does side i think the government reads too much into the king opinion i think is materially different thinking they there was the discuss the challenge to maryland's d n a collection act under the th amendment and they found the officers need our legitimate  identification against the privacy interests of an arrest the scene the bodily intrusion taking the salt and the information obtained from the d n a swab regarding the information though they said the privacy interests were diminished got his consent or a warrant like here they took his d n a as part ongoing criminal investigation and the consequence of the government's argument and this is the lock point i really want to leave the court with is that what the government's really asking for here is a new exception to the th amendment of the motion to suppress not over but it's a mixed question of law in a district court ruling on a motion to suppress presents us with a mixed question of law and practice and i'm trying to figure were they able to recognize him again based on having seen him as the driver of the camera and this report never made that factual finding and we know that because the district court left open the possibility that at jury trial still an open question took the very least we know that the district court made a legal error and it's probable cause determination because he said you have to know who the person is their name before you have probable cause to arrest them which we know isn't  association the home is there still enough probable cause for the officers to have a rest attempt put aside the fact that they saw him running into the house was just a probable cause and they said yes there was because they had gotten face to face look at him now my posy counsel says well just if they got a longer look that's a factual finding and again at the very least it should go back to the district court and have the district court make the factual finding up absent the chain of the th amendment violation