basis for arguments morning and i see councillor betty on the st one united states versus r may please the court whack and i'm using a system federal public defender from the western district of oklahoma on behalf of appellant terry rick mr ray challenges the district court's denial of his motions to suppress this case began with an unmonitored ised interrogation of mr ray resulting in admission that he possessed a blasting cap in his truck he gave subsequent statements to law enforcement his arrest which we submit were coerced and finally federal law enforcement secured a search warrant we submit on material misrepresentations to false woods which invalidate the search warrant and all the while mr ray suffered from significant mental health issues known to those to local law enforcement at the time of his initial arrest and the failure to accommodate these is one reason why the entire investigation was well who knew of those mental problems deputy short who was the nd officer called to the scene more senior of the two deputies that arrived deputy king who was the initial officer that pulled over mr the testimony in the record is that mr deputy short was aware generally that mr of who mr ray was he recalled addressing him previously but also that he overheard a conversation with other deputies in which mr ray was known to have visited red rock red rock is a facility that provides among other things mental health treat well in those among other things a kind of important because it also  treatment addiction counseling that is what he testified to and colloquially when someone is referred to having gone to red rock it means mental health issues it's possible that he thought it may refer to other things but i would also note that when he's when deputy short eventually finds the blasting cap and his requesting assistance he describes mr ray as i've got a crazy guy out here with some blasting caps well he was he was acting a little unusual was any i mean that's not that sort of present representation of what he's seeing not here we go again we know this guy's crazy well i thought i think it's fair to say that the possession of blasting caps in of a bus of itself in the manner in which mr ray was conducting himself but he was crying and he was suicidal right ye to secure the search warrant but arse position is that the statement of the blasting cap in the truck the district court was correct in suppressing that statement because it was solicited in violation of miranda but we want to go a step further and suppress the actual physical evidence found in the duffel bag now the district court disagreed and had two bases for you'd have to show it's cohen the statements were coerced right correct ok and so you your position is that there coerced because of knowledge that he had been previously at a facility that among other things treats mental illness correct along with other factors those factors being mr ray not being given miranda to begin with being handcuffed in a confined area being asked questions from an armed uniformed police officer standing feet away and this is all on the video for the for the court to say well he was handcuffed when he was arrested on the driving on a suspended license for the nd time in a short period of time correct correct and he actually put him in the front passenger seat of the vehicle right correct ok and that in your view that is evidence of  i think it's one of the pieces of evidence that's used in the totality of the circumstances determine whether it is coerced the other attack that we've had that we've submitted in this court is bound by pattni and that line of cases we think the correct before it was reversed by the supreme court we just want to preserve that issue that we think that case was erroneous lee decided but given a probably not going to overrule that case and not nor do you have the ability to and i respect that  so our position is that that statement was coerced and the unique feature of this case beyond the typical solicitation in violation of miranda is deputy shorts personal knowledge of mr ra mental health status and the suicidal common comments that he was making the district court's nd justification for the search would be an inventory search and i think that presents an interesting legal issue that i'd like to submit to the court we brief this district court relied on a hypothetical properly conducted inventory search i want to stop you just to be clear if we disagree with you that the statements are coerced we never reach the this issue correct yes ok so i would have to win on both of these ok and turning to the nd one that i also have to when the hypothetical search in this case we submit actually occurred  the inventory search that they normally conduct is done on the roadside that's correct that was what happened to the towing the vehicle and bring it someplace else like back to the police station or some car lot and then really going through it that's the usual thing isn't it and that would be justified for officer safety of getting the vehicle off the road but i think the testimony which we have to rely on and it was solicited by the district court are you telling me this is done on the side of off site well that was not testified to by the office or the government it's not that's not what they would have done here once they completed whatever they did at the roadside that's it is that your view that's the testimony below and this case unique because mr ray is not challenging that the inventory search was done in violation of the policies of the custer county sheriff's office but rather it was done in compliance with those policies and the evidence wasn't found so relying on a hypothetical search when one has been done seems to be not the independent police investigation well they weren't done with the search where they i mean the e mail and you say the search wasn't on and they didn't find it and therefore you know we we can't look to a hypothetical inevitable discovery but they were in the process of the search and would walk back and ask him questions in i don't know that we can conclude they wouldn't have found the blasting i'm asking you to find that conclusion i think there is some factual support for that and that would be that in this is found at the transcript pages thirty three through thirty four and also deputy king's video beginning at thirty seven minutes into the video he's searching the duffel bag with the specific intent to find this pipe  eth pipe that was discussed as being in there he has also his clipboard where he is doing his inventory search roughly thirty seconds later he's told to stop and that's when deputy short learns there's a blasting cap we need to stop i mean doesn't that sound like they weren't finished though doesn't that sound like they were in the process and he tells him to stop because he had some new information that he wanted to run down it's consistent with with stopping but what happens next deputy short goes to the passenger side of the vehicle and conducts his own initial search to see where the blasting cap is and he looks where he's been told to look  the truck and he does not find the blasting cap so that's two times where law enforcement has gone into the truck and not found the blasting cap but i mean you know you're asking us to assume that after they've been told the blasting cap is  aisle that they're just going to give up and say ok well we didn't see it on our st or nd pass that we're done and i i just don't think that that's that's a fair assessment of what happened here if i'm unpersuasive in demonstrating that the inventory search has been completed then i see the court's point our argument here is that a court cannot rely on a hypothetical inventory search when one has been completed we submit that the facts support that it has been completed i don't think the district court properly chased down that line of argument quickly identified that the deputies didn't know what a blasting cap looked like and certainly they didn't find it it was only after a rd  look after additional statements in violation of miranda were solicited that the blasting cap was found and the entire search was put on hold and deputy short called other individuals  i'd like if i could in a few moments that i have to turn to the rd issue which is the search warrants in this case there's no dispute that there are two incorrect statements in agent taylor search warrant for statement is that deputy well st name is that mr ray said during the stop that he has more blasting caps at his house and the nd is agent taylor's own statement that during his interrogation days later that mr ray admitted having blasting caps at his house both of those statements are clearly contradicted by the objective evidence in the form of the video and also admitted to be incorrect during the testimony of the suppression well the district courts sort of looked at this like a cat and mouse game i think when we got into the debate i guess with the defendant about the house and he says it's not my house this game of semantics leads me to believe that he possesses these it was a flat statement he admitted having the blasting caps at the subject residence period and submit that that information needs to go to the magistrate who could rely on agent taylor's training and experience and in the end i think the district court it with respect to the st statement the district court noted that deputy short who heard that  blasting caps and then he interpreted that to mean he has blasting caps at his house and the video evidence and his own testimony suggests that deputy short persisted in that misremembering from the very beginning he's told it to deputy king who told agent taylor he's on the phone with other people and he sticks by that until two days before the hearing when he reviews the tapes the point that i'd like to make today is when dealing with heightened privacy interests of someone's home when dealing with an random statement from individual you know to have mental health issues to then distort what that person says we submit rises damning here and that was just go hide the stuff they're looking for my house there you go heath justice contacted local law enforcement about a recorded telephone call that mr ray made in which he requested not only feed my pets but there's something on the couch can you please remove that something on the couch that they're looking at the police are looking for right it wasn't just something on  did not include looking for firearms the district court also relied on other statements about blowing up a tree stump in the front yard as suggesting he's got these blasting caps in the house i think it's correct that the evidence supports that at some point  blasting cap on his tree stump which is a legitimate purpose if you're able to possess these lawfully but that in and of itself does not support having blasting caps in the house and we submit that probable cause which is it please the court good morning my name is wilson mcgary on behalf of the united states appellee an assistant united states attorney in the western district of oklahoma before you you have three questions to answer and on events on april st two thousand and seventeen when mr ray was lawfully stopped by custer county deputies during the course of this stop he was arrested based on his traffic violation and subsequently searched where deputies found what he suspected to be methamphetamine and a knife there after he made some statements about a pipe being in the truck and and then he began making suicidal comments which led to deputy shorts involvement in this case based on the statements that he made mr mr ray made this lead deputies t and further to my point the reason we're here is based on those statements at that traffic stop which were included in the affidavit and led to the interview by a t f brings us to the questions  not reasonable miss but the challenge to the affidavit by mr ray however based on the lower court's ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses in this case in the lower court's conclusions regarding the evidence the united states would move this court to affirm those decisions because how is the district court judge incredibility again agent bring in taylor so we go off here and conclude that gosh well it's actually not true what short said that it was just negligent reckless maybe a little reckless a mistake negligence at best an under the circumstances is completely reasonable inference to make when he says i've got a whole bunch more of them at that time i believe the video would show that as soon as that statement is made that he's got a blasting cap that the shorts knowledge that it be king at that time is is in the process of looking for the pipe having also begun the inventory search that he is afraid for the safety of deputy king and at that point it's clear from the video that mr ray did not say it is house but under the obtain a warrant to search the house in this case that did not occur should have the right arguably he he could have but he had no reason to question the veracity of the statements provided by deputy king at that moment he i think agent taylor was perfectly  acted within his you know balance to rely on that statement from deputy king at that moment as another law enforcement agent is there any testimony that the officers generally rely on or generally go behind another officer statement to them so if short makes the statement he said he had more blasting caps at his house when he was sitting in my car will they generally then go back to that the camera footage to confirm that or will they is there any testimony to that effect i don't think there's any testimony to that effect to my knowledge but i don't i believe that agents wouldn't do that in every case otherwise they'd be bogged down in the heat of the moment having to obtain body camera footage from various deputies in sit there i mean the video's forty five minutes long which is not only the time for a stop at all but perhaps in a situation where blasting caps are involved going beyond that might slow the process where you need are you aware of any case law that would require an officer to go behind someone else's statement to confirm it through the tape no your honor is the take the best evidence i believe the tape is the best evidence in combination with the testimony from the individuals them themselves through to be able to explain what they were thinking at the time and explaining their reactions and why they they did the things they did that are shown in the videos if we if we disagree with him we think that those statements about the blasting caps being at mr ray's residence should be excised did they have probable cause to search the house yes your honor  the after david included statements from brandon taylor about his follow up investigation from statements made by mr ray when he made peace he stated that he had blown up a tree but there was some communication between them and ultimately they met him at the residence where agent taylor was able to personally observe the tree stump that was exploded or blown up and then during the interval rd interview about the that was about the blasting caps within a day mr ray had made a call to mr justice saying something the effect of feed my cat and get the the item on the couch that the police are looking for so it's clear from the record and the events that mr ray as completely aware that the a t f is looking for the blasting caps at that moment so those combined would provide probable cause for the affidavit in the affidavit even if the court were to exercise paragraph seven and in ten regarding the the statement that the false statement writer mistaken steam let me ask you about the inventory search is it a fair reading of the record that the inventory search basically was not complete at the time he started talking about the blasting cap being in the car that's correct a review of the video which provides very good evidence of the occurrence shows throughout the video you can see deputy king beginning the inventory search with the you know he's got filling out a form he's kind of checking the vin and he's kind of going through but at the same time he's also he also has his mind the statement that there's a blast  in the truck and so as the events unfold he's both looking for the the pipe specifically but also stopping to complete the inventory search and based on the you know the information of the blasting cap comes out the videos fairly clear that they haven't completed the inventory search at that time or the time he's looking  duffel bag initially are you believe he's looking for the pipe and the video it's only the briefest of look in there anyways and he's be focused on looking for a pipe and  necessarily completing the inventory search so i believe the record reflects that the inventory search was not complete at that moment and however this court doesn't even need to reach or analyze that that those those change the vents or whether there was an inventory a hypothetical whether we should rely on to have that a cooling between search based on united states people the pertain to even though those statements that mr ray made looking at whether those statements would come in and or pertain we have to consider whether they were coerced that's right here we have someone there's one officer who knows that mr ray spent time in a facility that provide some services for people with mental illnesses and mr ray is crying and threatening to kill himself so he's obviously quite distressed he's handcuffed he they've already told him he's going back to prison and you have to officers both of them on armed i mean isn't that a coerced statement at that point no grand a warning no your honor at that point he's simply in custody there's no evidence in the court found no evidence that there were threats made there was for instance deputy short the records clear that he didn't know the extent of mr ray's mental illness or why he'd even gone to write a rock which the record shows that treats a wide range of ailments and there's no evidence that he used any of his limited knowledge of his treatment at red rock in order to coerce him or threaten him and there was no physical violence or abuse or punishment inflicted upon him the video shows is this but was was the defendant questioned was there an interrogation i mean there's no miranda need unless you're asking questions yes your honor i believe the record reflects that deputy short and deputy king asked you have anything else in the car so  to the extent those would elicit incriminating statement and he was in custody yes there were there was an interrogation however looking at at those statements they were made voluntarily there was no no police cordon in this current court should have well from the judge and care is just painted the picture of the situation we had there rise to the level of coercion there was there were only two police or two deputies you can ass nice questions or not nice questions you know where's the line here well i think the line is threatening questions i don't believe they were threatening him they weren't physically abusing him when they spoke to him they spoke to him i believe the record shows that one on one really it looked like they were just trying to do their job and ensure the safety of the situation and to you know suss out the probable cause or reasonable suspicion that they might have that there's a pipe in the truck based on a review of their conduct at that situation there was nothing threatening violent or coercive in nature in their interaction while they did ask him the questions about what else was in the in the in the car those questions in their interactions with them did not rise to the level of cooperation or threats thank you thank you thank you thank you both for your arguments this morning case is submitted