a lot of things i could talk about in this case i'd certainly rata talk about whatever your honour's want to ask about but there are three points all start with just to make sure they're clear not necessarily the strongest first a probation search needs to comply with state law requirements as well as fourth amendment requirements in the person a probation search here the probation condition here didn't do either second the officers knowledge that there was some probation search condition clear didn't give them knowledge of what searches that probation conditional out let me ask you this counsel of under lara what what is your best argument that the fourth good going to that your honor laura basically looks it i sort of break it out is about six factors it looks at whether the defendant was quote unambiguous lee informed of the condition unquote it looks at whether the person accepted the condition looked at the seriousness of the offense the person was on probation for it looks at the seriousness of the suspected violation it looks at how private and personal the place or thing being searched is it looks whether the search condition was clear i would submit that every one of those factors goes against the government here first of all they were the unusual most striking thing about this case is mr burton was not only unambiguous lee informed of the condition he was never informed of it and california law specifically requires that second he never accepted the condition because he wasn't informed of it again california law specifically requires that which is what the the california law compliance is an issue here the seriousness of the offense he was on probation for it was reckless driving that's probably at the lowest end of the continuum the seriousness of the suspected violation driving with a suspended license again probably about as low as you can get on the continuum how private and personal the place or things searched was well we're not talking about a cell phone like a law but we are talking about the home which both this court and the supreme court has described as being quote at the core unquote of the fourth amendment finally whether the search condition was clear it actually wasn't that clear i don't think this is the strongest point but with or without probable cause the language in this search condition was something three different ninth circuit judges couldn't agree on and king you remember judge presiding had a different opinion about what that meant than judge graver and i forget who the other judge on the case was so i think mean we don't really even logical i mean you can almost skip the state law compliance issue though i think that's a really a dramatic problem here because under law now the government makes this good faith argument and  address a couple points about the good faith argument first of all the case they rely on it's arizona versus evans which is completely different arizona versus evidence and i case similar that follow the caring for those deal with the entries in records that are inaccurate and whether police officers get held responsible when a clerk or some other police officer in something makes a mistake that's not what happened here the government agreed both in the district court and assumes for purposes of this appeal that whatever was in the record that the officer wrote the word that the officer read was accurate the question here is the validity of the underlying order and that goes to the other cases  a stop or a rest had their probable cause or did whatever they were supposed to do then it's up held and if they're done if they if they don't then it's that story out what you don't do is get to totally insulate the invalidity by putting in to  database and saying oh well now an officer relied on it so you know that's that's a no brainer he wins so that's problem number one problem number two that i'm not sure i highlighted very much in my brief that you really need to think about as we don't at whatever the gov i don't think the police officers misinterpretation if there was one here matters because i don't think whether the probation was for a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon or for reckless driving matters but even if it did we don't have remember one of the crime it's of good faith it's objective good faith it's not whether the officer subjectively misread something it's whether his misreading was reasonable the only way to tell whether the misreading here was reasonable is if you had the original record to compare if the original record said he got he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon he was convicted of reckless driving he got a day in jail and saw with a deadly weapon he got probation with a search condition on reckless driving compas officers misreading of that would not be objective good faith because it wouldn't be reasonable without the record presented by the government you can't even evaluate whether his mistake was a good faith a reasonable mistake i have a lot of good morning counsel good morning your honour's nicole respects the united states i'll start with that the law to balance a interests i actually agree with mr gone on on this sort of six factors that he outline burton's privacy interests i believe that almost all of those factors actually show how diminished his privacy interest was and i'd also remind the court that what mr guy didn't address at all with the other side of the ledger which of the government's very strong interest in determining whether this receipt of this drug dealer with violent conduct in his past is reintegrating into society or is returning to his criminal conduct so i'll address the privacy interests first so the question of whether mr burton was an ambiguous unambiguous lee informed of the condition and accepted the condition it's not true that it's a requirement of california law that the defendant be personally present there's no case th state california penal code ninety seven a expressly permits an attorney to appear in court and accept on the of the defendant this attorney was retained counsel at the time and there's just no reason to believe that he didn't inform mr burton about this condition at a minimum seven months before this search in april twenty fourth team mr burton was object to a fourth waiver search in the same location as the search and in the record we've included at s t r thirty six officers reports indicate that they actually and for mr burton they were convict conducting a fourth lever search so at the time of this search it's pretty clear on the record that mr burton had been informed of this condition and knew about it what are you talking about i know your honor it sounds like there was a bit of a scuffle he didn't refuse to speak with the officers but he pled guilty to the offense he never challenged the condition he never went into state court collaterally challenge the condition so i think that's enough to another driver's car got out of the car punched him in the face while he was drunk the state judge determined that a fourth waiver condition with an appropriate condition given the circumstances of that offense and this man's long criminal history and so that certainly further diminishes his privacy interests as a probationer with this long criminal history of the house searching the house he was dealing drugs from the house all of the officers testified that they were familiar with mr  burton from the neighborhood they knew that he was a gang member that lived in the neighborhood he was a drug dealer and the evidence here here and it was pretty clear that they understood that once they found him driving on a suspended license and with marijuana in his possession it was likely he one i notice that the parties seem to agree that the money received is not for for the bill as proceeds of burton's offense because the money could not have been proceeds of a drug distribution and not yet taken place but to ask you what specific evidence there is that remains that sufficient for a rational juror to conclude that the money found with burton's weapons and drawings was used or was intended to be used in any manner or itself there was no testimony but at the earlier trial which was the same jury and we have that testimony at s c r thirty three thirteen to three twenty expert testified that drug dealing is a cash business and that it looked like mr burton had materials with him that were manufacturing so he was buying coke pure cocaine and manufacturing that into cocaine base and expert also testified that drug dealers the reason that they often have weapons it's to protect that cash and the drugs that they keep with them so i would submit that on that evidence and the expert testimony and the jury's kind of reasonable understanding that drugs is a cash business and if that having that large amount of cash is going to help mr burton go out and buy the supply that he thing going to turn into actually aggregate of all these materials in context that gives the juror the injury overall an ability to make this determination or as if you have them individually they're like if there were just a pile of cash you really couldn't do much with that alone could you it would depend on the circumstances you certainly could have to an expert come in and talk about that cash with other circumstances but we but yes here we have other circumstantial evidence that ties the cash to the drugs that the backpack for the cash was was right above in the garage right above the sweatshirt where the drugs were there was evidence that tied this working sack to mr federal pre sentence report that has hearsay and it was prepared after the fact in a police report it offered in a four hundred four b evidence motion to the district court subproblem number one is that wasn't evidence that was presented at this pression hearing that can be used to support the suppression ruling problem number two is look at what even this hearsay police report now now what the defense would have done if that evidence had been presented the suppression hearing extensive cross examination about just what happened but just look at the police report on its face all it says is he approached mr nor was i mean i'm sorry mr burton mr norse's north case and said i'm going to do probation condition it doesn't say he told mr probation mr burton this is a probation search condition of probation search conditions are discretionary with the court and the court ordered it and you can go somehow go back to court i'm not even sure mr burton couldn't get it changed there's no evidence here that he was from mr burton though who mr burton knew who had been on parole before it was like the prince search condition under california law which is statutory and mandatory so so that does not show that mr burton somehow months after being sentenced in the in this case acquiesced somehow or ratified this is this condition that he was supposed to accept and was supposed have been an ambiguous they informed of it there's nothing in the record even if you could consider what the government relies on that shows that you know the government also refers to this violent drug dealer with criminal records the officers all testified was a drug dealer well you know that wasn't quite the testimony if you read the record of the suppression hearing and it was and again all the government points to is a pre sentence report which is not information it was in front of the court for purposes of the suppression hearing and it actually doesn't show that it has a burglary report about charging a police officer there was never any evidence that presented in the suppression hearing or anywhere else so this even if you could somehow look at the overall record which i would submit law and king don't tell you do law and can say look at the fence he's on probation for then you don't have anything here that would justify that would favor the government in the water or can balancing they may refer to the marijuana as part of the justification but remember the marijuana was discovered as part of a probation search the measure the search of the person was part of the probation search so you can use the marijuana to justify the probation search the only by up to date did they find the marijuana on a person or stopped in when i was yes but the search of this person when they found it was part of the pro they only did that as part of the the difference because my recollection was they found it on his person and you're saying that the testimony of the expert about the environment and why it was a drug dealer etc etc was in the house right the test by the expert at trial trial about what he found and how he got the information to the jury to make them believe that these the collection of things found there suggested what he was about yeah actually that testimony is really about the stuff that they found outside th by the way i think it's clear from the case by judge clifton you wrote a franklin opinion were right i think it speaks a little broadly i think it says there's reasonable suspicion you can search if there's reasonable suspicion to think there's a probation violation i think in context and given the purpose of a search it's clear under the case law that we you need is reasonable suspicion to think there's evidence of a probation violation to be found in the place to be searched here you know the arizona versus case makes clear that when someone is driving with a suspended license there's no spaces for suspicion of finding evidence in even a car let alone the house so this was a suspicion a search if you don't rule in my favor on the larking issues you're going to have to address the issues left open in king about whether a suspicion list search is ever allowed for a nonviolent offense that someone's on probation for that the person hasn't accepted those are both two issues left open and king that would need to be addressed if but i think we are and king are pretty dispositive here as well as the california case i'll submit less comfy must thank you both very much for your argument spirits lawyers are always nice to hear from experienced lawyers who know what they're talking but fresh students are pretty good they're good to know we had some good students this week really haven't for four days we've had students and they have been very good thank you counsel they just argued is submitted