united states actually i don't know if you heard any of my appearance so i'm just going to start over started giving her a thank you good afternoon your honour's amanda jawad appearing on behalf of the united states i would like to reserve  but was caught picking up a large sum of cash from a known member of an international drug trafficking organization in the vehicle that acosta pereira was driving to pick up that large amount of cash you had to report documents relating to the fight and says that in organization those was the outlining several money elating also to mexico the believed source of heroin for this drug trafficking organization and the nd document was a money gram receipt and then it was just a way of transferring money from one person or one place to another and can be used for international us john or so i'll move into talking about what ties a cost of prayer to the house and that's his role in this drug trafficking organization in under the case law of this circuit for a high level member drug trafficking organization it is a reasonable inference that they which he record and money relating to that organization with him or within a stash house which is actually what the agents believed this home  into ice custody so knowing that several members of this drug trafficking organization were arrested that heightens the risk that someone else could go to the house get rid of the evidence once they know they're on law enforcement are it's likely one of the members of the organization could have either destroyed or moved or hid any evidence in the house so the officers had one day to try to piece things together to conduct surveillance at the house they also  with a attorney for the landlord of the house who said that a poster pereira was paying rent in cash without a lease and all of those factors le the officers you conclude that a cost of rare was trying to draw as little attention to this house as possible which is common for currency stash houses for drug trafficking organizations and that's where they're hiding their money judgment the law doesn't require the officers to to rule out any innocent explanation for the behavior that they're seeing the officers saw that there were shipping notices on the door that no one had been there for a while which is consistent with their view of  house but i also want to point out that it's not required that their specific what they just report was looking for which would be specific drug deals or observations of drugs at a house because this court has recognize that if there is a major player in an over well in a sorry large ongoing drug trafficking organization you can infer that there will be records of that drug trafficking organization  in chicago and i'm not sure of the the nice but the three cities in which the drug trafficking was going on with  herrera was returning to possibly sporadically that's where he was getting rent that's where he was paying for utilities and in order and they are in a drug trafficking warrant for that i think that would be a different a different situation your honor i think that would be a much tougher government well if there was evidence that the residence was used for purposes of vacation and in that that wasn't pr two thousand mile distance is too far in a bank robbery case it was not enough to establish probable cause but the court still found good faith in here there is plenty of evidence that the officers acted and since we've sort of moved into talking about good faith i do want to address the district courts conclusion that this was a bare bones affidavit that's just simply not true the affidavit i'm payin paragraphs twenty four and twenty five and his conclusions is what makes us not a barebones affidavit if you look at the definitions that i've been giving even if you look at us to be christian of what a bare bones affidavit looks like i seeking from that location was the self that they already had some evidence would have checks it would suggest that he was the person who and so the drug that killed them all you need isn't that a different circumstance that was that was a common and often comment made by the court i'm not sure the court relied on that and finding there was probable cause but here there was probable cause to search for financial documents in this house we know that a coster pereira had financial documents for this organization he held those in his car so it is reasonable to think that there would be additional financial records in in the house and to the extent the warrant was overbroad and also seeking drugs in addition to currency and financial records the remedy for that is not to suppress the whole warrant the remedy would be to strike any overbroad provisions in the warrant in the government could still rely on what they found within the scope of that warrant and the drugs would have probably been found that we have not shown probable cause the court can find that this case falls under the exception under leon the good faith exception which we believe applies to this case as well and i believe my time is almost critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific things to be seized are located in a property to which  this case the warrant doesn't provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that any evidence of criminal activity was being stored at the surely residence that any criminal activity had occurred at the shirley residence or the knob or costa had engaged in criminal activity at the residence or elsewhere it was no probable cause for the search warrant to issue and it was unreasonable for any police officer to believe otherwise it's important to understand the context of statements like we can infer a nexus between a drug dealers home and evidence of their crimes this court st made the statement in the case of drug dealers evidence is likely to be found or they live in  united states bush jones in one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight and i think it's important to understand the facts there in that case the court was dealing with a search warrant to search the defendant's home after a confidential informant had come forward and told the police that they had engaged in multiple narcotics transactions with the defendant the police set up controlled by and those controlled by stick place right outside of the home in the car in the driveway not inside of the home but near the property and imac ace the defendant argued that there was no nexus because the confidential informant and the police were never actually inside of the home they were outside of the home on the yard or in the driveway and the court disagreed but it didn't rely on the idea that an excess can be inferred because it's a drug dealer's home it relied on the facts that were in the affidavit about the confidential informant and about the previous purchases and about about the control by his and the facts there are unlike many of the facts that creep up in cases where the court makes similar statement to the in france comment in jones and none of the facts in any of those cases and in any of the cases that the government relies on are present here in this case we don't have transactions occurring in or near the house we don't have any confidential informants or any controlled by we don't have any criminal history or any witnesses who have purchased any drugs from the defendant we don't have any a distribution quantities of narcotics or even of narcotics at all but actually this case is a postal worker the ground around there were even more facts than what we have there were text messages on a phone that police believe to be the defendant's regarding possible distribution or at least prices of narcotics that police believed were going to be trafficked by the defendants and most importantly the defendant and the person that police believed to be a narcotic shafik or were on their way to a controlled by when they were pulled over and stopped by police and we don't have any facts like what is the rule that you would have us look to in the situation where you don't have a street level you are but you've got somebody higher up in the hierarchy i don't think that a bright line rule stating that an inference can be or that an inference can exist there's an excess implied between a drug dealer drug for some i don't believe that that can exist i of explanation would you have about the components of that test that one might look to in the situation that's argued by her husband counsel i just want to make sure looking to understand a response to the kleins that these really while not i don't just are sufficient to go to someone's home and in a search i'm so tell me either what else needs to be considered number one number two i do think that it's different when we're talking about money carriers the government as i think sort of promoted no burra customer at throughout the course of this case  not a high up financial officer within a drug trafficking organization he's a money courier which means that just by the definition of a courier money is transported not that it's stored not that records are being kept at his home or that he's in charge of all of the government or all of the finances or the drug trafficking organization i think that money couriers are different than drug traffickers in that sense you where you think each case though where good faith saves the weren't there are some facts that the officer can use to believe that there might have been probable cause even if mistaken and we just don't have that here himself indicated something about him being in the car to receive the money it is that not an additional factor to the three theories are all i am saying oh i think that the statement dropping off the money is different than admitting to being a money man and i also thing that it doesn't get around the geographical problem of where that happened again it was three hundred miles away from the home that was ultimately surged and i see th  i think something that's getting lost here is in the backs at the time that my client was pulled over in chicago illinois mr elvira's torres was in the vehicle he was the subject of the agent's investigation for a period of six months on the day that they were that my client was that he was identified and the warrant as an unidentified subject and then later and the warrant they the afghan said that he believes that my client may be a money courier for a major drug trafficking organization then as we move through the district court and the government's briefs they indicate that my client is involved with possibly drug trafficking as well as money laundering is a suspected drug trafficker or not and so we're on appeal here was he ever identified as a high level operative and a large drug trafficking organization responsible for keeping and shipping the organization's money and maintaining financial records my client is a young man he was in his early twenty's he was a high school at the time that he was sat there were no drugs in his vehicle he does not have any prior criminal history and he has been in the united states since the age of five he's married with three children that are all very young on the government government's case doesn't involve any links to his home evolving the registration on his vehicle as well as his driver's license gave his address and dearborn heights michigan when me and but when they age and did surveillance on that home the only thing they found were some shipping address says that he had picked up packages but he'd already been arrested in was being held in chicago so the address was correct when they checked with the landlord the landlord acknowledged that he was renting the home he was paying the rent and cast but that has to do with the fact that he's any legal alien not that he was trying to avoid the government there were plenty of legal connections to this home that were not criminal  back the district court pointed out what they saw at the home was nothing let alone criminal activity so i think that's the they don't floss in the search warrant is that they needed to provide some concrete reliable facts that this home was tied to criminal activity and they don't have it here they don't have any information that my client is a drug dealer a lot of that let alone a well known drug dealer or high up in a major organization and i think that's also the fatal flaw as to why the good baby steps and doesn't occur because there's just no plausible connection between the facts in this case and client's home some three hundred miles away and michigan what do you feel about the someone well so what's the issue if someone caves is as the court pointed out the defendant in that case had prior drug coupled with recent reliable evidence of drug activity and that's kind of what makes it different the bulk of the cases that the government is relying on involve known drug dealers or they involve reliable information they involve officers that witness control they are involved reliable and mormons who gave information that then further investigation they were able to the informants information was accurate i mean here we don't have any of this this was paragraph sixteen of the search warrant is the st and only time that my client was ever there could have been mr because he was in the vehicle to correct and then the stevens the statements that my clients made were you must have been following over as tourists and alvarez tourists that i was dropping out money but those statements alone i believe are exaggerated now somehow take on a criminal meaning which is very similar to the brown case i mean on the ground is because of the multiple vehicles that were at issue the vehicle that mr brown was actually stopped and did not have the drugs that would have been the silverado truck but the vehicle that he was stopped in was one of the defendants at the four cell phones and he himself had four thousand dollars cash now we don't know how much cash was involved in this case because it wasn't just the warrant it's like i have a minute left any of the judges have questions i'd be happy to try to answer yes your honor i'd like to clear up why the government thinks that it is a high level money money man for this organization and that's because he was caught red handed picking out a large sum of money  in a car with documents relating to drug transactions for the organization we don't need a confidential informant to tell us about its activities when we have a coster perera with the money coming from a known drug trafficker and then he has received that lead to more money so that's why the government feels he is in a high level position he's in trusted with large amounts of money as if he was a one time kori or you wouldn't be driving around in a the exception carved out in brown the government does not need to show that the residence was used in drug trafficking if there is overwhelming evidence that he is a major player in ongoing drug trafficking organization and that's exactly and gang member urse with a whole variety of us and it got her there they were distributors of large quantities of drugs struggling with again defined the exception because of his level and and this drug trafficking organization and his role of keeping the financial records we know he keeps the financial records because he kept them in his car and that means he's more likely to have the records more likely than not likely to have those additional records in his home or to have the money in his home his role in this organization and gave the agents the probable cause they needed to get into he before he said that caret that's true your honor the st time that he came the law enforcement radar was that traffic stop and if he had just been picking up money from torres alvarez and that was it there probably wouldn't be sufficient probable cause but because he was not only picking up the money but he had a financial records in his car that's what makes it likely that he will have additional financial records because clearly he was responsible for keeping track of the whereabouts of the finances of this organization not even that honey graham did the money could have his nine on it it did not have his name on it but it had an address listed on it and when the agents searched that address they  cash but remember your honor the the money gram was found in the center console of a cost of rare earths own car that he was driving most people don't keep things in someone else's center consul so he had that money gram he had the ledger and these facts are sufficient to establish probable cause and at the very least are sufficient to show that they relied on a warrant in good faith let me ask this question and refresh my recollection of his immigration status ok i have one of the question and i understand your argument that there was concern that someone might come in and remove evidence from the house couldn't stand the investigation that could have continued even if someone else came into the house then couldn't that person be tracked and wondering why there was this concern because someone would