in which they required immigration agents to get a warrant if they had time forty five years ago the th circuit in cannes to emphasize that this statutory mandate should be seriously appl violated the statute we fast forward to two thousand and eighteen when immigration agents arrested mr santos without a warrant their testimony at the detention hearing at th suppression hearing was that they never got warrants for these type of arrests where they believe the person had prior to the port that it was the prior it was the common practice and they didn't need a warrant the they found that the likelihood of skate requirement had been met because the defendant within a vehicle so they applied the statute and found that the the arrest was lawful exclusionary rule and they've narrowed the suppression remedy quite substantially and they're they're quite they're quite skeptical of it even the supreme court's willingness to apply the court has been very skeptical and how much and wouldn't it be all the more skeptical if there was no statutory basis or suppression but simply the court so on supervisory power we'd be we'd be pushing forward in the  problem for an intermediate court your honor i agree that the press supervisory authority you did screen was rare however your honor once again i believe the standard has been confirmed by the case by the supreme court case of quarterly three years after did recognize what the supreme court that a in math and the mad and there is to learn things like nab recognized that it disregard the flagrant disregard your honor is repeatedly the arrest the agents said they did not need to get a warrant and that they did not get warrants as required by the statute and the government their legal argument was the statute did not even apply they also do you have it do you have any testimonial or documentary evidence other than your cross examination of warrant that they couldn't get a warrant but you're a lying basically on on his testimony to represent a flagrant abuse for was deported in two thousand and eleven obviously or really enter the united states after deportation and he was arrested in two thousand and eighteen and probable cause for the arrest and in light of what he knew of the statutory violation and of the particularly problematic if without a warrant if you you can't go into someone's home and arrest them without a warrant but on the other hand people are arrested all the time without a warrant if they're in a public place and i thought the office here had waited until he had left the house and if they arrest was conducted in public is is that not the case i just learned he was about warrant during a lunch break here are several days literally it takes a matter of minutes your honor it is easy to do i did want to address dr g s his question in terms of evidence of record the government that even in a civil context and the deportation they don't get the warrants as required well counsel there's a me read you part of the cross examination i don't know whether that was you or another counsel in a bolo but obviously on cross examination you're stuck with what the what the witness answers to your question and the question was is this your testimony you don't need a warrant to take the person into custody let's correct x question that's the practice sometimes it is this is the answer sometimes it is sometimes it is it that would seem to be a very weak reed a based upon one agent's testimony to find that there was a flagrant abuse that authorized a other but the the basic problem still remains and i'm not and i'm just not sure bit that you addressed and that is that the statute of the statute and we just can't supply the remedy and i notice to say that the court supervisory authority can step and well under what criteria and what you know what court i don't understand what the standards are for the court to be exercising its supervisory authority but the main problem i have is it's just it's just extra statutory we can't just go around adding and inventing our own our own statutory provision but they said it cannot stand the executive branch conflate every disregard congress and in order to maintain but already two congress only support is the one that can require that suppression your honor and the statutory cases donovan what no twenty two quarterly and your honor spacing plenty they had specific provisions that's why they were tied to the statute  the just because the statute doesn't specifically address it it doesn't prevent the court from exercising the essential supervisory authority and i think my reply reply write the history of and fifty seven which is why i cited the copland case those that congress knows exactly what they do when they write a statute in one hundred and fifty the f b i has the same requirement that was taken out in fifty and fifty two is when congress put that requirement in for immigration so i think the implication is that they take it seriously they expect the immigration exist to take it seriously respond your honor pardon me i think my time is up but may i respond yes you may i think got abdi got it wrong by relying solely on the government's position is one there was no th amendment violation because the defendant was arrested in a public place and on probable cause and that satisfies watson and one thousand three hundred and fifty seven a doesn't have an express statutory remedy for exclusion and so that that particular mode of analysis doesn't apply here either and three the escape provision in one thousand three hundred and fifty seven doesn't implicate important th amendment interests let me give you a particular example as an analogy for example introductory g the supreme court held that where a suspect was fleeing from the police and he threw some cocaine away as he was fleeing and plea of course is something akin to escape exclusionary rule didn't apply and so therefore if you don't have the exclusionary rule applying when somebody is fleeing from the police a violation of the analogous fifty seven dollars a i would like to turn to the alternative argument that there were systematic violations and in on this issue you have to look at the evidence in the light most favorable  actually consider or address there's no systematic violations in this case at most you have a while either the statute in this case may have violated it d in another case but there's been no showing that in all of his prior arrests that those arrests were illegal there simply was no showing of what the facts were in any of those because in many of those cases maybe the escape or vision was actually upheld or maybe the defendant was trying to escape and the officer oss will also testified that some of the practices he engaged in he did happen with sixteen years ago when he was on border patrol that are a little let me administrative and administrative warres here what do you say with respect to a point that judge floyd had raised in his question i would say the fact that the government has not sought to justify the arrest in this particular case we decided for prudential reasons not to challenge the magistrate or the district court's ruling that the arrested violated the statute as far as the facts in terms of getting these warrants it is a very very complicated area d but again for purposes of this appeal of the government has decided solely to focus on the issue that was raised in addressed by the magistrate in the district court we can see for purposes testified that he didn't usually make arrests in situations like this but other than that we don't have a record as to why he didn't go out and seek an administrative warrant i guess to call the had been any other violation of the statute suppression isn't authorized it's not authorized specially under supervisory powers and the court as you pointed out earlier in questioning upon the supreme court has one consistently cut back on the scope of the exclusionary rule for example in hudson they said that there are alternatives to suppression including internal police discipline and civil suits so if there turns out to be systematic violations or where there have been rules and acted by the congress works don't have supervisory authority to go beyond those and here you have a statute which congress has specifically remedy well for example two of the examples that were mentioned in the hudson case much of other ways decided in my grief in the footnotes of the supreme court there said in cutting back on the exclusionary rule the supreme court indicated that the internal police a disciplinary measures and civil suits would be alternatives to suppression so if it turns out that there is a case in which perhaps the ice agents  are not all willing statute one of the ways is to bring that attention to their supervisor so they can be disciplined another thing would be as above and as pointed out is to file a civil lawsuit right or rent these things from happening but suppression is not the remedy in a situation  i don't i'm sorry i don't have any further discussion i'll be happy to answer any questions that any of the judges ma interest even in that circumstance before a remedy for a statutory violation could include suppression yes i think that that follows from sanchez a lot of like believe the supreme court was intent on narrowing the scope of a lower court's authority to use exclusion as a remedy for a purely statutory probably if you read such as llamas the various points that talk that that term comes from the supreme court's decision in an er where they left open the idea that you could have supervisory authority to suppress evidence but the supreme court has moved on from that incentives limas and again in cases like i don't agree with you have the systematic disregard of not been developed in the district court but it is it fair to say that there's a flagrant disregard of th amendment interests or whatever ast in a public place where the officer or the detective had probable cause to know that there was a reentry after the deportation and you know that that can be authorized a remedy is if this is one of those rare cases i don't understand how i an arrest in a public place without a warrant for a known w one number two there is no one to remedy either that the press did because the person will get the portrait so there's no other remedy it's easy lining for them to do well i'm not sure the no other remedy because sometimes these with these violations can be looked into in all kinds of ways congress exercises supervisory authority and it holds hearings and the rest and if this something untoward going on congress can hold a hearing about it there can be internal disciplinary procedures for someone who gets off the track and it's not clear to me that everyone is deported because they may be confined or called serving a prison tarmon we have people bringing our have individuals bringing nine hundred and eighty three s just mentioned that there are three really different means of rico us i mean they may not be your preferred but i have a feeling that they would be i think the supreme court would take note of authorized remedy it is that if there is some if if there is something more here if there is a but but this this is a fairly commonplace i'm not sure if i have any time left or not well you go ahead i think always i always think to live again should get the last word so i would appreciate it if you deportation will follow and will happen regardless of whether the evidence is the prest whether that be immediately in this case i think we're in the know that that the reason why they supposedly arrested him they use the trojan horse so suppression will merely prevent them from doing something that the obtained in place of disregard of the congressional statute and it will accomplish the purpose for which they arrested him entry into the country after being previously removed or we have to consider the fact that you know that's an important to reme deportation is an appropriate remedy for a violation of the statute that's part of the m said the only question the problem i have is it just seems hard to get around the fact that this statute does not authorize suppression is a judicially impose remedy that's just as a matter of bedrock law it is not deal and we appreciate mr blue so i'm sorry i forgot to ask judge a g and judge floyd if they have any further questions of you judge a judge floyd either one of you have any further questions five minutes thanks to also to the court room deputy for for help on this this honorable court stand insurance until this afternoon god save the united states and this honorable