order asking you to file a supplemental brief address through two issues and one of those issues whether the district court from the order whether the district court erred in concluding that your client consented to the search of the cargo on top of his vehicle you did not even address that issue in your supplemental brief your honor i felt that looking that judge for his order i thought that was i interpreted the question as looking at his order and he didn't read disorder so you do think you addressed the two questions is that your position your honor and i thought that a question of voluntary yes whereas perhaps scope is more appropriately or is it at least i thought more appropriately under you are going to discuss and then discuss them i mean the government managed to understand what we had asked to be in the supplemental breeze you know the order i don't think was unclear car there was several things that were cited in evidence he was talking about the fluctuation of the speed and i didn't cross the incoming line of traffic but there was a get on to the fog line as testified to by the officer your honour's can see reasonable suspicion question is a fairly low bar and not a question that we asked you to address in the supplemental break right ok but would you like to give us argument on the other question that was we asked you to address the supplemental brief you voted i guess you devoted a paragraph to it in your mirandized by the police officer there may be some people that might want to talk to him and then he might want to think about trying to help himself out was that  question was was that the fundamental the functional equivalent of questioning by the police officer prima randomizing your honor as your honour's already noted he was not right and he was in custody because he was young and we know that handcuffed at the i would say that it was the function and the reason it was the functional equivalent your honor is because it was reasonably intended or likely to listen i believe the key here and i'm ultimately falling back on randy and i quote in order to render a statement admissible the proof must be sufficient to establish that the making of the statement was voluntary that is from the improper influence since he would have remained silent your honor your honors in this case what's key here is that trooper willis ultimately says there are some people who might want to talk to you and it may help you might help your case that alone it might help your case is a question of i would say really hope because he's saying it might help your case essentially couldn't at least on paper i think was the reference but at least on interest there were in the supreme court case is that what you said yes you're right they were talking with each other and it could not have been reasonably calculated that it would have it please the court this record to not clearly air when the court found that mr bernard voluntarily consented to the luggage to search not only the contents of the vehicle but also the contents of luggage that's what  government's position is that the district court properly found that the scope of the search having included luggage and all contents there it would include the luggage the contents of what's on top of the car i would suggest that it would also include what would be on the back of you know one of those luggage carriers that you put on the hitch for example in florida as this court held that it included the search of the trailer when someone agrees to consent to the search of the car w not only that there be custody but there'd be a similar coercive effect and i knew that here this it's a declared declarative statement it's that you there might be some people who want to talk to you when we get to the detention center and you may want to talk to them there was it was that reasonably likely to elicit an incredible help yourself right you may and he did it by the way say you're a little bit of trouble when you get there you may want to help yourself out but he didn't say anything that i think would reasonably of the district what was right that would be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response in a couple of similar cases for example in blake know so that to at least implicitly suggest an employee of the court noted that the statement that i guess you want to cooperate now was an implicit suggestion that cooperating with benefit the defense well here it seemed to me that when i was reading in this bernard had already incriminate himself post arrest right i mean there seems to be talking nonstop and given all the circumstances he's in the car with the police officer who has established a relationship we're looking at it from seven hundred feet and we're looking at syria sort of what what this would be ok i hear which is yeah i guess what i'm saying is that he's saying look when you get there you might want to talk and you might want to look out at that point he would have had i don't think he said when you get there brandeis no but they were on their way well he does say maybe some people that might want to talk to you right and they might want to think about trying to help him you might want to talk when you get to the detention center there i think that would make this a little dicey for me because he's given all of these statements that the government doesn't rely on it needs to rely or it's very helpful to the government because he actually has a defense here or he he proposed defense that he was using this because it was medical marijuana and so that these statements that he made in the car whether they were precipitated in in violation of the constitution or not those statements are very helpful to the government's case yes that issue because he has the government might might have prevailed anyway but it's unknown you know and i don't think i read the transcript and don't think that the whole idea that this was medical marijuana i think it was something i was surprised at the prosecutor and so and they might have been better prepared for you know but they had this statement to go right argue against that yes and i would that that actually that the medical marijuana she was a subject of a grand jury appeal earlier so i'm going to leave that to the right i'm not and i just right you sure is trying to lay the table on why i think that this is because he made yes all you know there's all the massive amounts of evidence so there was an underserved defense well he was always long asserting in court at least that his defense was that it was for his personal use now i do so and i ask you a question about that this is a massive amount of drugs fifty three hours mason jars a massive amount of drugs if it's being used for personal use so isn't it doesn't the government have a harmless error argument even if there's a constitutional violation we made it yes your honor i've made the harmless error game and i think that it would be harmless even if this court held that the statement was improperly admitted but i and i know how big were the jars well the total amount was one and a half kilograms and there were fifty three mason jars i think they were a quart size if i'm not mistaken do you can you refer me to anything that tells me what is that's what we know it's not just the fact that he was in custody doesn't mean that it was an interrogation and violate memoranda what or that it would have to be suppressed what we what it says is it has to be similar after a poor that they had i don't think that there would be there were no you know i think that sort of goes both ways i agree i think it could but i think the district court could conclude that it was not as coercive it was a declarative statement it wasn't a question it was a declarative statement made about a future event which presumably he would have been mirandized by the time he did it and it was a statement made in the context a relatively friendly encounter from all that i could tell it appeared to have been a friendly encounter and so i think that those three factors taken outside of this court considers its earlier decisions response than the statement this case that you know you're in some trouble you get there so people might want to talk to you and you may want to talk with them to help yourself out so i think that it is less incriminated less likely to an incriminating response it is not subtle compulsion is not enough this court has held that bell and i don't think that this was the functional equivalent to a an interrogation in a police because he said well you know i grew it i'm going to sell it there's nothing nobody can help me out that's what he said he didn't consider because he knew the fact he did i say he didn't interpret they're going to say go and sin no more but somehow if i just come clean it's going to be helpful to me right that's what it's going to consist of or that was developed it was you know you can look at that both i take your point i understand that and you know but i don't think i still think that if if your honour's review the case off there's nothing that i've seen in this court's decisions or the supreme court that suggests that there there can be really an absence of which it was sort of hey this is a good idea and that that is why i yielded a statement that would stand suppressed because it was involuntary under ranta was a good point but we do know th about a similar situation statement the cooperation will be brought to the u s attorney's office was interrogation statement that the officer would inform the district attorney was in turkey telling this defendant last chance to cooperate constitute a geisha and the difference there though is that here where it's all first of all it's all in the sort of maybe you might say some people they might want to talk to you that's really very different from i'm telling them what i'm going to talk to the u s attorney or the district attorney and and let him know what happened and that's really not as coercive and i just i do think that yes the supreme court of miranda reference is hope but what animates the decision in miranda and what animated the supreme court's decision in ennis that that question was not sufficiently carson was coercion the whole of the that the primary concern that animates this memorandum and also all of the jurisprudence that you can have so much hope unfortunately and society minute times over is more destructive than fear because the hope that you'll be a star is a hope that you'll get rich they become at some point  is the fear of saying if you don't do it i do this to you so you're right it has because worse it but that coercive result can be needed or that the the medium of it is through hope and saying that no you would think no there will be people because i've probably seen these people all the time who meet you when you come down there and when you give them them when you get down there you know you might want to talk to them and help yourself right and so if that becomes such that that becomes but i don't disagree with that i think the question is where's the line drawn yeah and i don't think that the line is drawn out a statement that says you know there might be some people that want to talk to you might want to help yourself out that doesn't get there now if it were hope that were more concrete that were that was a a longer conversation that we're through maybe multiple statements that suggested that he share better for you know we might get there i don't think that this one statement by officer willis or trooper willis really gets us there and i don't think the district court erred in holding that it doesn't get this thing so that's i think the best that's my response and and i would also say that  i think fear is a lot more destructive than hope but i do agree that you know at the end of the day the question is really where the line is drawn and i don't know of any cases where the line is drawn in a statement like this well you know  leniency or light sentence to get you to induce you to plea i think it's very much an important part of what motivates people is it sales you might call it fear great this is fear  all over body a million are in essence so yes it is basically what would be typically considered a high amount but he also uses quite a bit at a time most people most normal usage would use a quarter ounce of it at a time to use it so theoretically if you're doing that every day i don't know how much fits in a mason jar but i think it's probably  police car i think all of that goes to that question of coercion it's hard to distinguish when you're a defendant who law enforcement is there some people that would like to talk to you and i don't know that that does anything to say well this trooper or maybe a federal agent or we don't know but what it does do is it requires reflection and that reflection goes directly to the normally be considered able to be voluntary