search of mr lennard or his home and what happened in this particular case boils down to whether the district court was correct or incorrect in time the that to trash falls in which small quantities of marijuana were found which sufficient for establishing probable cause in this case and what happened was that there was a search warrant affidavit which was based on an allegation from a confidential source that courtney watson who was mr leonard's wife was dealing drugs from her home and it was a bare allegation it didn't say what type of drugs it didn't say what time period it didn't say the basis for the informants knowledge and it provided absolutely no information about the informants reliability just required and knowledge this and said that she wasn't relying on what the informant says because then she would run into problems with this court's decision and glover which requires that if the informants words are used for the informants contentions are used in an affidavit there must be some indication of reliability or truthfulness on behalf of the informant since none of this was there the court did not look at  credit the statements of the confidential informant the other piece of information that was provided apart from the trash holes was that ms watson they had run a criminal background check on ms watson and ms watson in her background in the arrest for aggravated battery and a conviction several years old for obstruction of justice but no connection with any kind of drug dealing or drug offense or anything of that nature and this court has been pretty clear that there are circumstances in which you can rely on a criminal history to be to establish probable cause but there has to be some connection between the prior offenses and in the current the current investigation and there wasn't here so the district court did not rely on that either the district court said based on this court's decisions in mcduffie and i believe it was billion that she felt that the two trash holes would be sufficient to establish  there was a reliable there was reliable information from a confidential source there was an extensive history of drug dealing in a rest for mr mcduffee and then the marijuana trash pull was was cited in support of the other information that was provided what we didn't have in mr leonard's case and similarly with billy and the trash hole was used to reinforce the reliability of the source and the surveillance that law enforcement had done in mr billions case including the arrest of someone using billions car and billions criminal history and his prior conviction of cocaine possession so in the billion and mcduffie case the trash pulls were used to support other information that had been provided an independent investigation by law enforcement and mr leonard's case they didn't do any independent invest to geisha and to determine whether this cooperating source was at all reliable or credible there was no surveillance there was no control by there was no relevant criminal history there was nothing at all about mr leonard so what is the record courtney wants and was mr to the to drugs of any kind  well there was that that's what somebody said somebody said that she was dealing drugs from her house now the problem with the marijuana pulls from the bags first of all we had no there was nothing presented at the hearing to say what the quantity of marijuana was what condition it was found in or anything else the court presumed in agreement with me that it must have been a very small amount otherwise they would have reported it so we don't know what the quantity or that nature of the kind of we don't even know if it was just simply residue or leavings of some sort that was found in the trash bags the other problem with that flight being found in the trash bags in the back of the house was that the house was the trash was in a public alley it backed up to the public parking lot is very different that marijuana could have gotten there any number of ways and it's a big leap and i would suggest too big of an inferentially to say that somebody is dealing drugs from a house when there are small amounts of marijuana in the trash because first of all it could be simply a matter of possession or use by someone who was a guest to the house it could have been possession or used by someone who had never been in the house and there was no indication of a quantity that was big enough to justify finding that somebody or an assertion just a bare allegation that somebody was dealing some unnamed drugs from the us to house the whole problem is they state use the trash holes in the marijuana to go into the house like you know swat team style and this is a house where there were seven children living and they went into the house based on this marijuana alone with their shields and their masks and their guns and everything else and the the problem for allowing this to happen especially in illinois where a medical marijuana state and we are  more or may possibly become a recreational state as well you could you could anyone who has a grudge against someone else could say leave a anonymous tip so and so stealing drugs from drugs from their house pass them marijuana trash cans people pull to pull the marijuana out of the trash cans and go into the house but there needs to be something more than simply what's found in the trash and no i've not been able to find a single case in th so it's our position in the first instance that there wasn't sufficient probable cause for them to do this and then the court made the additional finding that even if you agree that there is not sufficient probable cause that  exception applies and our position with respect to leon is that leon requires good faith and it has to be reasonable and in a case like this where law enforcement did not do any independent investigation at all to determine the truth of this cooperating sources information and all they did was run a background check which didn't reveal any supporting information to them at all and use that to go into the trash holes that wasn't reasonable what they did there was no surveillance no observation no independent investigation the quantity wasn't sufficient to justify a conclusion of sale and it didn't justified the search and the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to teach law enforcement that they shouldn't act in particular ways and you don't  enforcement to do the bare minimum if they're going to be making a decision to go into an individual's home and and search it thank you so and any of that we would ask this right so i just heard that they saying this is not enough evidence for drug dealing but that's not relevant possession of marijuana for most people in the state it is a crime they point out know this is a trash can that was sitting near the back of an alley and that anyone could have done it but the affidavit for the search warrant is very clear that this was in a sealed garbage bag with indicia of residency so unless somebody went into the house i mean there's always innocent explanations in any of these cases right you just choose not to open continue to see your bags that you can yes or no if this was somebody who worked at a government lab and happened to handle cocaine they might have cocaine in their clothes and you might find cocaine in the in the garbage but finding cocaine to straight weeks and then applying and getting a search warrant two days later i think we'd all be we would accept that yes they're innocent explanations to anything the supreme court has made clear that the totality of the circumstances have to be looked at so the defendant's argument really in some ways as i was thinking this through has to kind of contradictory elements on the one hand that there's not enough information about the confidential source for us to rely on it's ok on the other hand they have to assume that the that the trial court the magistrate court that looked at it must have relied on it otherwise they can't get around the leon good faith and that that just can't be there are reasons why you would not put significant information about a confidential source who they are or anything in there but when you don't put that information in you assume that that will have very little reliability if any this case has we had to trash holes they were accomplished nine days and two days before the search warrant had in and each occasion they resulted in an amount of cannabis that was field tested in a sealed container with of residency the defense has conceded essentially that they cannot now nor could they at the district court point to any case that says that is insufficient the defense now raises the claim about well some people in this state have medical marijuana and that is that is true that was not raised a point out in the opening brief that was raised in the in the reply brief but even if we assume that at the time this happened mid two thousand and fifteen marijuana was there were some people who could have it that's an innocent explanation that is fairly minimal because it by and large marijuana by its nature in this state at the time was illegal in other words the government believes that there is enough here between the two trash pulls on its own to satisfy he that there was probable cause and even if not there's no way to get around the good faith requirement these officers went to a good catch in neutral magistrate they asked for a warrant they got a warrant that's prima fashion evidence of good faith and there's been no case nothing to suggest otherwise to the one application contain information about the bill eighteenth there was there were shoot between the two trash pulls one of them had evidence there it suggested that there was two are neighbors ants i don't know if it was a bill but it was to our neighbor's aunts but it gave a description that fourteen twenty five fift that was ms watson's house but the defense tried to make much of this that well mr leonard wasn't named and that's the the question is does this premises is the that still doesn't get you to drug dealing judge basically that certainly was her house but what the what the informant said that she was dealing illegal narcotics and there was nothing to time as watson to any illegal narcotics stealing and the marijuana found in that in the trash cans is not enough to support an inference of dealing because you don't know what the quantity was and you don't know how it got into the trash can in the first place and so you have to make too many inferen between ms watson and the marijuana in the trash can in order to make it sufficient and the final thing judge is that the government wants to have its cake and eat it you know it can rely on the totality of the circumstances with respect to this including the statement from the informant but you don't want to look at glover which requires that if you're going to rely on the informant in any way you have to show that they're suffering liability to it and that wasn't done so we'd ask that the decision of the