we move to the second cases morning united states versus ha throwing pebbles at a tank i have looked at this case and i would like to change his language judge evans language a little bit believe it's more like throwing stones at a ford fiesta i believe that in this case believe that the warrant is lacking in the reliability i would in in reviewing the case and reviewing judge reinhart's opinions in regards to this case as well as the government they rely specifically are quite a bit on johnson kelly and said well and those those cases coming out of the seventh circuit are of course important but all of those cases every single one of those cases  confidential informant in those case were inside the residence he had an idea of what the residence looked like he had an idea as to where the drugs guns illegal activity was taking place and he had the idea of and the police had them in the residence in this case we have a confidential informant who we know very little about but we do know that he was never in the residence of where my client was living and i leave and peered fedak we say that that was not his house it was not his apartment he will kazan only lived there a small amount of investigation by the police could credibility so i believe the controlled by meets one component when you're looking at the reliability of the confidential in an informant but it's not it's not the it's not the only reason that the court would determine that i think that there are four or five reasons that this court has kind of divided or figured out as to determine the reliability of beginning of the search warrant the confidential informant at least according to the officer who presented it to the neutral magistrate said that he had been in the house and purchased in the house when in fact this the purchase that that you're asking your honor specifically did not occur in the house as a matter of fact the a palin had to get into a van into a truck and drive a fair amount of distance to meet the confidential informant  and again they are indicating they have no idea who this guy this person is the the appellant in this case there is police surveillance saying that he left a side door of the residence that's it again a large black male and i don't want to be too insensitive at this time of where we're at but a large black male is a a description that is beyond the pale i don't understand how shall have i'm sorry a social because what what other features whether markings on the large black male what is the   it is the same person i mean he was arrested after the after the controlled by a few days later he he was arrested but i'm what i'm disputing is exhibit and i'm looking at this from a a local police officer and i'm trying to determine whether i should sign on the dotted line in order to provide this warrant i'm saying that that's lacking if i'm sitting there and i see a large black male i believe the first question and i would be asking the police officer who is presenting this is well do you have more information that you can give me can you tell me who he is have you taken a photograph have you gone back to the precinct have you tried to see if this in if anybody knows who this is how you actually know that the person was the same one at the control by disputing that the police regardless of whether this was his permanent address or not  disputing that there was not reason to think that he was staying there regardless of whether he lived there right yes i am disputing they have no knowledge that he was living there all they have is him coming occasionally in the police in the warrant talk about drive by and they occasionally see a large black male coming in a knowledge of the part i'm not disputing your honor that that mr haynes was the one who sold the cocaine to the confidential informant i'm not disputing that  that the arrest of mr haines itself was illegal what i'm trying to do is go in the way back machine a little bit here back to when you're presenting the probable cause affidavit to the neutral magistrate and try to determine if that's going to be sufficient even with the with the sale that is included in that whether he taken that as a whole totality of the circumstances whether that is sufficient to be able to establish in this particular case  that that that mr that that the appellant is the one who who purchased that because remember he wasn't arrested during the by itself it was it was days later that they executed the search warrant  executed the rest i think the time frame is somewhat important here is that i believe that the by occurred on april thirteenth i believe that april sixteenth was when the local law enforcement went in front of the local judge and presented his case and then it was april twentieth when they executed the search warrant what within the four days of the search warrant were not attacking that but i think that the the timeline is important in this case because they still haven't been able to they had no idea still who a large black male was whether he lived in that residence or whether  mean please the court i'm tali bucci and i represent the united states in this appeal this court has repeatedly recognized that a properly executed controlled purchase generally is a reliable indicator of illegal drug activity and that's what police officers did in this case they received a tip from an informant about an individual involved in drug trafficking they then conducted a controlled purchase from that individual and they also conducted surveillance of the residence that was to be searched and saw an individual coming and going in gauged in what appeared to be officers based on their training and experience to be activities and to give of drug trafficking the controlled purchase was closely monitored they searched they met with the cia they searched the c and after they provided the funds for the controlled purchase they did surveillance on the way there on the way back the cia never met with anyone else they actually saw the cia meet with the person who came from the willard avenue residence in the vehicle and they traced that person directly from the willard avenue residence and directly back to that residence that controlled purchase occurred only a few blocks away from the search residence and officers properly executed that control for just that control purchased alone was a reliable indicator of illegal drug activity occurring out of that residence and that was sufficient to provide probable cause to support the war and now in addition they also conducted the survey allowance which is described in the warrant and was also similar to activities seen in the controlled purchase all that information supported the magistrate judge as probable cause finding here and none of the defendants individual attacks are sufficient to undermine that determination the defendant attacks the description of the individual who conducted the controlled purchase as a large black male but that but where the evidence is likely to be located where there is a fair probability that the evidence will be located in addition the defendant states that the government could have done additional investigation but the inquiry here focuses on the investigation that was done not additional things that could have been done if the court has no questions i'll close by asking that the court affirmative the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress thank you coun was adequate is information was inadequate i don't think leon would would come into play on under a confidential informant because the basis of the information would it would not be would would not be effective in would not be able to be used i i do believe i've seen so many of these search warrants before and i just was just somewhat shocked  mean when you're when you're sitting there in the nuts and bolts of these cases and you see that your client is looking at a significant amount of time with the amount of drugs found a weapon that was found close by  take a look at this and if you have the ability to understand where the some some issues then you you preserve those if you can i believe in that this case  and i think more and more as local as the federal government is taking local control of local police force on small amounts of drugs that it's imperative that the government have the ability to talk and teach local law enforcement how to do proper how to do proper search warrants and that if this is the lowest level that is enough for probable cause i think that we have a lot of her