took place over several hours over four full days over many weeks and that was because trial counsel wasn't a multiple defendant case count pending it had four defendants it was a robbery case it was a shooting a police through the court's attention in terms of the argument that's out there but he didn't bring them terms of the argument we know it was an invasion by six police officers fired him without a warrant without probable cause no exit in circumstances that's clearly sa later as well what trial counsel ministers that was all done before the cattle drive cattle remember was that a gem taking a shower each a thirty to forty five minutes to arrive and then what happened in terms of flagrant violation that you could possibly imagine and trial counsel didn't garner the facts and didn't even a understand council the trial court's ruling the traffic court's ruling was actually favorable to them he should've said look what they found that should have been suppressed he didn't we had a trial that took place that shouldn't have had this information it would be in ireland different drive in that would have been the murder and probably was it's absolutely astonishing that's all travel counsel good there's no argument in terms of this that it's in this transcript and neither party presented this transcript the entire transcript of the court i think it might be very helpful and i'd be happy to prepare a supplemental excerpts of record if the court wishes there's only a page or two he there from the suppression hearing that is currently in the excerpts of record and when you read the entire suppression under the better late than never yes yes and i did get into the case recently read this last night and i think that it is it is helpful if the court wants me to do it and what is revealed when you read the suppression hearing where i believe either four or five officers who were involved in this testified is that the rifle was not found until after the consent was given and that's the reason that the trial attorney never raised any issue about it it was very clear on this record that they first thought they entered they saw the pistol in plain sight on the bed that was in fact suppressed as a result of the illegal entry then what happened they called sergeant ricardo who was the investigating officer for this case he was at the oakland athletic club chadian showering he came twenty five i'm sorry forty five minutes later and nothing happened during that period of time every officer that we did nothing further in that room until sergeant mercado came then she talked to the person whose name was on the lease that she gave voluntary consent to even the defense investigators report which is in the consent which was attenuated from the initial illegal entry then they went into the room they searched they found all these items including the rifle that was used in the murder so based on that factual scenario there was no reason for the issue that was litigated at the motion to suppress and then on appeal was whether the content was attenuated sufficiently attenuate and that's what the court of appeal reasonably found that since it was forty five minutes later it was the person who was not under arrest she was happy to give her consent because she said i told those boys not to have any guns or drugs in the in the room that's part of my my lease and if if that happens then we can all get hit out so she frequently went through the apartment to record if you read the suppression hearing the officers when this when mr ramsey was trying to flee out the window they saw him lift up his mattress they didn't see what he did with that what he put under it or anything else but but they and so that's the reason why this this trial attorney didn't raise that as an issue and i think it's clear that everyone in the courtroom understood that was the sequence some of them said and so there was no reason to suggest that they were seized prior to the that everybody seemed to not necessarily concede but it wasn't really ever in dispute that the initial entry was unlawful and that that first gun that was found would be directly as a result of two to photograph this is on my repeat thirty seven r t one thirty i just want to make sure the court understands i'm not making this up out of whole cloth and the other thing i'd like to bring to your attention is this fact that was argued is kind of an interesting argument that