move to the final case this morning united states versus some window residence that must be set up before you dig into the details which routes could you tell us about the status of the larger case for you sooner or watson lots of defendants and what's going on in the district court so said yes we think that there is definitely good faith to rely on this this court has upheld warrant so substantially similar grounds before so that brings up the problem of the government invok review and it's something we've come to be able to with but haven't done very often we clearly would need to be rare what's special about this case from your point of view that makes this appropriate for us to exercise a discretionary power if we get there so if we get there of course we understand that it should be aware this is not something we normally are here saying the reason this is rare i think probably this is the highest interest the government could have we stand in the shoes in these situations of the public interest and the public always has an interest in seeing people that are guilty be punished or at least held to trial for crimes that they are alleged to committed here we have this scenario that i think it would clearly fall under good faith if the government had raised it so if without was timing an issue here yes i you know i had to stand here and make excuses but the government was in the midst of trial prep for a multi day fend it trial with multiple witnesses and when the defendant filed this motion to suppress after the deadline we filed two we objected to that on timeliness grounds and the district court ordered us to respond and gave a six days right before trial so yes i think that played a factor again i know the government certainly understand we have resources and we have to make too many excuses that did play a factor and while we overlook that if you found any cases where the court found wasn't sure which it applied but she proposed a hypothetical where a guidelines was significantly departed from maybe what a defendant should receive and i think this exceeds those bounds quite a bit because this is about whether or not whether a defendant is sentenced in or within guidelines whether a defendant can actually punish for a crime that he appears to have committed and at least stand trial on that point that this is seems to be the perfect reason why because it really twice over not only did the officers rely on a good faith but this would be some the constable blundering in allowing a defendant to not be held accountable for his actions destroyed could you address the errors your appar lengthy affidavit the names are six similar four letters start start with a j we don't think in any one of those it was misleading in a relevant way in other words it didn't really heighten anyone's responsibility little more on the general rule to the extent there is one here at least my understanding is we have shied away from endorsing a per se rule there you know since you've always got probable cause to search your residence yeah really our case for co seems to come pretty close to that one can you hypothesize a case in which probable cause to believe if you're him you will have an issue of your employment at your home we think that is an inherently reasonable inference to make the this court is hypothesised a safe house so i suppose you could envision a very very tightly centrally controlled drug conspiracy where the kingpin of it made everybody keep all of their instrumentalities not just the drugs but the indicia of drug dealing and it in a safe house i think that is probably unlikely to occur in the charged with money laundering so that was going to be relevant to and really there is certainly nothing in the record to support a presumption that jose somebody you know would have stored wands and moody as financial records as cash cell phone all those other instrument jose somebody else even if there was an inference that a centralised tourist the leader of a drug this drug dealing organization would have kept all the drugs in his home which we don't think that's true either but even if that was certainly there is nothing to say that everything now the court has no further questions i'll reserve the balance of my time for a bottle  this case is about whether this court should effectively adopt a categorical rule upholding of prob finding a probable cause to any location simply because a drug dealer lived there and i think the courts question to mr it's rights or i could court question to the government about a hypothetical where just because a drug dealer lives somewhere would not lead to probable cause is this case and in all of the their examples that come out of this this court there is either something else or or not allegations which would lead a reasonable reasonably prudent person to think that the drugs were stored elsewhere do you agree that the affidavit was sufficient to indicate probable cause that one's a movie you know was an agent in the trafficking operation yes your honor and care so i agree with you but given the types of evidence that are relevant to drug trafficking prosecutions including for example financial records absence of or rather unexplained wealth and income and so on why would you say that pretty reasonable to for the magistrate took you to agree with law enforcement that there's probable cause to search his home and see what those financial records look like i think i think in most most cases there would be this case though the facts are very particular and i think indicate otherwise meaning at the time the warrant was was issued one was not there was nothing in the in the war alleging any sort of activity with money laundering so i think we need to look with with the warrant says about one's involvement with drug trafficking there were three instances in the war where it mentions for next mistretta media with with drug trafficking and they all have to do with a connection to jose's a fifty two grams or so of methamphetamine in the second one one and co defendants were being surveilled and someone got inside one's car and then left with a basketball sized package again no relation to one's house and i think it does back up our argument that all of the ties with this word jose's house which makes is closer to the walker case and in the third one evidently answers if jose smile and tell someone to come pick up drugs at jose's house i think i think this is not the walker case where the only thing was and this is how we distinguish this case i think your honour's this is not the walker case where the only thing he looked at was the officer's training and experience at regular ski paraphernalia at their homes this has those other things that would point to reasonably prudent person elsewhere how do you make that argument when this court has said that the probable cause does not require direct evidence linking a crime to a particular place that was set in or is co and anderson yes however however i think when you look at those cases they all had something else as well i mean orosco was the the second in command  gain and there were people speaking about him and telling on him that they have bought drugs from and also it wasn't just the same probable cause statement i think in rosko it was along the lines of you know based upon a day caitiff experience and narcotics there will be evidence spat at a high ranking gang members of the agent here said based on my training and experience i am aware that drug traffickers generally store their drug related paraphernalia in their residences and further that they maintain records relating to their drug trafficking activities in their residence how does that differ from the language and is that the way we want to parse this and by the way is that the way officers need to parse it after a magistrate judge has issued a warrant no your honor and i think this court has already decided cases in line with what we're asking this court to decide today the wyly case does specifically note that it's inappropriate to adopt a categorical rule and i think the walker case which was close and if i remember correctly in the walker case it was language very similar to the probable cause statement that we're dealing with here and the walker case it stated that it was close to the line and i think this is past the line now there are hypotheticals in the walk case such as some sort of indication that the dealer uses a safe house or some sort of indication that all of the drug related activity is being done and a certain place and i don't think that hypothetical pushes it barely past the line i think your honour's that that that would be an example of something that clearly would be passed on line and we would argue that and misters in medio scase he is past that lie maybe not as far as  assertions that they used a safe house or that all of the drug related activity took place and somewhere though i think i think the facts alleged in the search warrant and the probable cause statement are sufficient to warrant a man a reasonable prudence to believe the evidence would not be found at once a video sounds because all of this trafficking activities are tied to his brother  conceded that one some audio was engaging in narcotics trafficking and the agents final of her meant that based on his training and experience jogs and tools of the traitor generally kept in the home  honor and i think it would be without these these specific allegations against juan on what he was doing when he was being surveilled are not the problem the problem with that is the more nuanced and subtle and narrow your would you like me to address probable cause aspect of your question for the good faith as i take your pick well the good faith when i think should be easier for this court to decide because i think it is not free just because the government didn't raise it in the district court level so were you counsel to trial yes i came in relatively late to this case i did father suppression ok so u s district judge to overlook prior deadlines right i did carry and the judge did that and so the government's under this pretty pretty extraordinary time pressure on the eve of trial and they were gonna so why should we not cut them a little slack just as the district judge cut you some very important slack to allow you to file a motion at all because they didn't later try to amend their filing with some sort of good card showing on why it was late whereas with our filing we had to explain your honor why why there would be good and i don't even know if we did that with our initial filing your had to supplement that i can't to the evidence actually taken from his home you know there is enough in the affidavit through wire taps through other people who have pled and who could testify that they would be able to prove some of these other charges without the evidence recovered from the search of one's medea's the law says that the district court is supposed to give great deference to the  your honor i think judge brack gave great deference to the magistrate however i think the district court saw that because of these affirmative allegations in the warrant that completely point away from once a movie owes home that it fell in closer with with the walker case bad that this is this is past the line this isn't something that's that's a close call i have just two points on rebuttal first of all while it's true that was a scenario was the ringleader we would point the court this is all cited on our brief on page six our opening brief jeremy preview had drugs at his home albertson and his daughter did so even within the warrant just because jose some video was the ringleader of this did not exclude other people from having drugs in their home much less indicia drug dealing second point on plain error why we didn't supplement the suppression was granted five days before trial two of those days were the weekend saturday and sunday so it was pretty much now or never for us whether we're going to file a notice of appeal and stop the trial and stop the witnesses and everybody coming in and that's why we went