after the evidence or hearing where the officers testified the court and the government then submitted additional declarations on those issues at the conclusion of all of that the evidence that rest of it to just a court level was as follows specifically that the officers had an interest evidently the attachments that had been to the affidavit at some point those attachments the first one described the place to be seen and b was the items he sees however the evidence in its best scenario for the united states is that was folded up in third and in fact after it was could not been have been more painfully obvious the legal relevance and significance of whether the attachment the affidavit was the triggering event was either shown for the crimes given to the grounds or left at the scene the only evidence was a statement from the from the agent from the government's leading question which was what the affidavit present at the site to which the agent responded yes it was present at the site attachments and b which is where they were going to search and what they were going to look for but the triggering event is extremely important as well you know in order for it to serve a dual purpose which is one to the particularities crime in the fourth amendment has two purposes  it was a night time or daytime search if in the affidavit it said daytime search only and this was a one time and the individual is not allowed to look at the affidavit it wasn't provided and it wasn't attached to the warrant the individual had no opportunity to object or  that there was a violation of their fourth amendment rights to it unreasonable an illegal search of their home the triggering event getting the condition pursued as well as just as important as the individual could say that hasn't been delivered yet what what is this i have no knowledge of this and it didn't happen the individual each has the opportunity to be fully informed as well prevent system in law enforcement encounters being anything other than civil time to search of someone's home additionally in this case thirty minutes into the search it's when mr gross was shown a copy of this think she was well the few attachments and at the end of the search they were given just a search warrant to officiate it makes sense and it's required in the fourth amendment  authority under the gant opinion that at the outset of the commencement of the search the individual must be given a copy of the warrant so they can govern they can watch and monitor the search in this case he was given thirty minutes thereafter that is a fundamental violation of their rights for several reasons one it was thirty minutes into the search and extensive search had already taken place with thirty minutes there's no just you know the record about that additionally what they were given what makes this a fundamental violation of rule forty one is the fact that what they were given is nowhere near what they should have gotten they got a very small part not the essential documents and they got a cover letter about a search in essence when they only got the search warrant face sheet and i have two minutes on it was not the fact the case that then expensive search and already started during that thirty minute delay there was testimony that the agents were securing the residents they were taking photos making sketches they were getting the lot of things going on in that thirty minutes but the district court found there was indeed a technical violation of where all forty one thousand for the purposes of this argument the government can see if there was a technical violation how do you see it is more than a technical violation explain to me why it was only technical because it was delayed it was not denial your honor it wasn't expected who are aware of their obligations there wasn't a lay in providing a warrant there was not a denial to provide the  circumstances these were circumstances that the district court considered the the presence of the two young children which mr gross was very concerned about he didn't want but they were searching those children they searched the children it created was two categories of error and what i'm arguing to this court and what the district court found is that this case falls into that first category of a technical violation of the rule detention what's hampson moused to a concession that he was in custody that is not consistent with this court this court has said on several occasions including in the woods case that ensuring that everything was secure effort having spoken with mrs gratz that told her what was going on he walked up to mr grabs and he said you know why we're here the district court found this was not posed as a question you find that the search itself was yes i do believe you need to you would then need to address the suppression issue because the the statement was made before the search and having been made before the execution of the search when i do believe that you would have to address the issue i don't believe it's the fruit of an illegal search i do believe  so on the exact answer to the question was did he ask to see a copy of the search when i believe the answer is no that he didn't specifically state that but the testimony was also that his wife was in the background i think this was confirmed by one of the agents as well as well by his wife that she was asking repeatedly from the beginning the moment they got there until the end what's going on why are you here and what exactly is going on what's important about the recent opinion ramirez that was just cited by the united states and discussed here is that in  page three nineteen of the excerpts of record as well as page one fifty two it talks about mr bradstreet saying she only got one page search warrant face she left at the end of the search that wasn't