ice investigation would like to search the house i say it's not my house i really don't think i can let you do that and they say well we're going to get a warrant anyway so we're going to leave an officer so i don't just search for weapons and assuming i have a different profession i say ok no problem they know that i don't have authority actually authority or parent authority because i've told them it's not my house so it doesn't now again it would have to be a situation where it's not really that she was just very very well i would say that in that line and here she eventually says yes but my point is that they can't reasonably line that when she's already said no for the reason that she doesn't have it and i guess there's no dispute i mean the state doesn't say now she had actually already she had you know it's about it's about a parent so i just i mean again there's no case on there's no case on point there like a some point where they can reasonably believe that the person has the or the state side for an example where a woman comes in a robe and she's holding a baby and that's certainly the police will be led to believe based on those and not house it doesn't appear that she's looking to the beds are made everything is neat everything's orderly there are no suitcases there are no clothes it looks like she's just there for a visit which is just there for us that's what she does the officers so i just don't see that this is any any situation states i was perfect in that we're both arguing essentially by an absence i mean in my opinion i can't show with one hundred percent certainty that they did call the officers or they did public an officer as a result of what they found during the illegal search or that they said on the other side of the coin th they just really just randomly sits down and waits for the dog to show up the dog shows up in awards and they say if you truly believe the watch he goes against the war and doesn't mention anything in the warrant about the fact they found the contraband that they call the dog to alert on i mean it's just i don't see how and applying for a search warrant if there was an search which turned up drives was about search because at that point then once they see drugs they've got certainly cause to search the rest really search the rest room and they charge the defendant with why take the time to wait for the the person they already had under arrest down in the park so i'm saying is there a lot of extra foods that they took the trouble to jump through on the canine applying for the warrant waiting for that for the judge to issue the warrant i mean back and doing the search when if they did since they had already found the contraband if it was if they had you know probably found contraband they didn't have to  thought i would conclude this portion of my argument by saying going back to something i mentioned a few minutes ago which was i don't think either side here can prove with one hundred percent certainty why what happened the problem of course is that it wasn't what it was i burden is to this board as a show in the alternative if this court does decide that there's not enough i'd at least ask the state mention this and and it's free and i would agree with the safety side but i would ask that if it this court decide that there's not enough and i put that against the defendant terms of losing on this argument but think it can be expected that well just represent is going to stand up and say we're ready to jump back you know when you could certainly step up and say yes judge we've had a conversation with grandma she's coming down tomorrow with  full of money and a party receipt we will be entering our appearance and i will speak for everybody on the panel but personally if that occurred when i was a trial judge  that's that's for you know will will give you a continuance in their representation that assuming the money's coming tomorrow you're getting in the case was his office had every opportunity to say yes we've situation like this where he has concerns with his attorney at least one of which arguably in hindsight is reasonable or motion to suppress i don't think it's you know he's just asking for a continuance i don't think that he's asking and again stated earlier to now that everything has to be even than it is the case then it is for the cases in which the defendant just jumps up at the last minute they have a name doesn't have any money doesn't have anything anything to go  have their record reflects that there was a plastic bag that was found by the truly in the weapons search and also pushed an execution the search warrant and in the plastic bag was according to canine officer were present and the state's argument is that the record fails to show that there's any connection whatsoever between the weapons search and the requests for the canine the record and it also argued that as in rent and harry did not apply where there was no impermissible expansion in the independent source dr now the state also argued alternatively that the end of inevitable discovery doctrine  applied here the evidence was actually found by lawful independent means the inevitable discovery doctrine applies defense which would have been found by law is independent of any constitutional violation so therefore the record contains no factual findings regarding the propriety of the officer's action and the state had no burden or reason to present evidence on the issue the state had no reason to present evidence of what the officers did  relied on in finding that benito had a parent or actual authority to consent to search the room had didn't have any reason to present any additional evidence regarding the time or the circumstances of the dog about those or any of other issues relating to defendants are even the council should have filed a motion to suppress it should decline to address those arguments where the record is incomplete then they would have option of raising  those testimony that the officers left out after the weapons search indicates only that there was more than one officer present during the weapons search she did not testify and was not asked whether any other any officers l so officer leave or some other unnamed officer officers could have been among the officers have been able to testify left after the weapon search there's no testimony that contradicts our sites testimony that after  she told the officers it was not her room where she is not where she is not l her statement that it was not her room she had purchased it indicates that she believed it was not room in that she had  and said that when a woman comes to the door with a baby on her hip then that is enough to indicate that she knows that she has a right to be there and she sent a search of the premises on that's more than enough to indicate to them indicate that she had apparently already to consent to search the room to the extent that this court might find that something more was needed again that goes to the any more that it indicated the defendant was a defendant would pay for the room apparently had no suitcases recording there either and if the beds were made as consistent with the fact that as the receipt that the police found in the defendant had been there long in order to find that she had common authority to consent to a search of the room and also on the issue of developing a record on this point it's event deciding factor is whether time counsel stood ready willing and able to make an unconditional entry of the parents defense and here the court found that that was not the case and  we would just rely otherwise on the arguments that we made our brief and  any of the other officers and their supervisors not put it in the in the application for a search and again the state's argument would require that the sport believe that that was what happened and common sense just doesn't up to the room and then when they got up to the room they find spare ones that are everything to all the packaging materials and they're going to sit down and ignore it not mention attending it just doesn't happen the only other thing i want to say is just also strongly indicates was that other officers were in the room with him when he served and i made sense of it really is a weapon search you don't want to be on if i were a police officer i want to be bending over looking in a plastic bag while the person i'm afraid of stand behind me but what my my you know my compatriot cops are standing out in the hallway i mean i just i just don't think that they that it went down that way but that again the testimony strongly indicates that other officers were in the room it might it doesn't show for sure that it was our stock but it was evidence there was another officer