issues before this court i believe a very clear i think there's no question that frank's versus where it's controlling but i also believe that the problem with this case is the the murder it wasn't negative to her but it was evidence now normally it's enough to get a search warrant to show that there is evidence of the location because she was willing to give it to them without one structure but what rule is you know that says you can't get a search warrant just because the person would give it to you voluntarily it may be a good rule  i think you know i certainly would agree that the police shouldn't be going getting warrants and going to have if they know that all i have to do is knock on the door but what constitutional violation  don't think there is one you're well than the constitutional issue here is that this man fabricated a story making this stuart the suspect of the murder of your own daughter and why did you do that he did that for  reasons of intimidation he didn't do that because he wanted to gather evidence of a homicide he went to the extreme of creating a completely fraudulent affidavit one that is wasn't completely fraudulent though you prefer the pleading it was largely for argument but there if you if you buy francs which you can see just controlling there was enough in there even if you take out all of the false statements to get a search warrant if you believe anything he says after telling all those lines but why would is he's conducting an investigation therefore that remaining part that he says we should believe in give him a service where does frank say that that the magistrate has to lie some sort of global credibility drawn somewhere and well and in a situation like this is the most egregious case i've ever seen in my years practicing and i imagine there's been nothing else before the courts i've seen nothing else like this and so i ask even if frank says what is left because franks assumes what is left is true that you have some kind of credible information then in each case such as frank's you have credible information remaining and it is somehow substantiated and in this case al saying that we're going to take everything that turns out to be factually false or when we're going to add to the search warrant all the information that is factually true that was omitted and then we're going to retest and see whether there's probable cause there's no way that the ma e could have known that the the officer as you allege in your complaint was a was a pathological liar there's no way the magistrate could have known that by but the facts that are left in the warrant after you take away the  false statements and you add in the material omissions are still sufficient for probable cause irrespective i mean some of what he said turns out to be true in hindsight and that's that's the test  that's if the warrant was lawful then you lose your appeal your case if the if you had of course if he did it for legitimate reasons no no no no no i didn't say  to get a warrant for evidence that you're in total together because that isn't what that is not what he was doing he was not going he's going to have a he's doing it for the wrong motives he's doing it because he wanted to silence an intimidator he was doing it because he wanted to show her that they didn't want to hear from her any longer that's why he was doing it he wasn't seeking evidence or you say that if there's a valid wine with a bad motives and improper motive or do you think you can't get a warrant if the officers motive is improper i'm saying that his statements that he was there to seek evidence was also a i would question your honor whether any magistrate would have issued a warrant if it had been written saying it is my understanding that mr hurd has been or the mother of the victim of a homicide nine years ago has in her home some documentary evidence that she is offered but we don't want to accept that we would rather go get a search warrant i've got a magistrate issued that search warrant because that's what the facts would be left with we have an idea that there might be something this woman is offering us and therefore we want to search warrant your home i can't imagine a judge issuing that and i can't imagine separating what mr so the did and saying that he had somewhat of a legitimate intention to go and gather evidence i cannot imagine that because he did not he had no intent to gather evidence his purpose was obvious and why would a person thanks you so many line he's accusing someone who is not reasonably a suspect of murder in order to get into her home knowing that that alone would break her heart and cause her great trauma and then to say well i was doing it for this evidence i want of this murder investigation that i'm not conducting because he evidence relevant to what she suspects to be a homicide that's enough republicans and i think that is enough at that point a lot of the argument is that once there's enough for probable cause arrest people for because of their race whatever it is as long as they could have gotten some kind of a  just used that just with respect to home invasions by law enforcement i think all the recent cases i've read are traffic stops or you know very imperfect steps you know you can do anything with a getting a search warrant the search or three court case which i cited pretty prominently and brief talks about whether you should get evidence from a third party by way of a search warrant versus getting it by way of subpoena and the supreme court in a pretty long opinion over and over again says if evidence is believed to be there relevant to a potential crime that's enough and you have the rights to get by way of search warrant as opposed to going to by way of the subpoena that actually had to do the newspaper i was there when it happened reason why they use google and i think when you step back a little bit and look at practicalities there's a pretty good reason for it the search one in this case goes on for quite a few pages and between truth and false really true completely false qualified and not just a normal library a law enforcement officer we run into the with from time to time i can't remember running into a case where there is as many it's almost any effort even if you can find something wrong with it and we're not talking about any affidavit and yet picking i mean we're talking about something that we've never seen before at least i've never seen before in the cases that come  contending is a false what has to do with the question of who committed the murder not whether there was a murder not whether evidence was there if you take out all of the statements in contention that have to search warrants instead of relying on mary stuart to voluntarily provide all the part of documents and other physical materials relevant to the investigation is of no moment as plain as counsel conceded at all argument there are legitimate investigative and prosecutive reasons why counsel in favor of which counsel in favor of investigator seeking a search warrant in lieu of relying solely on the good faith of a party who is at best a material witness and at worst it's must provide all the documents in question because this court reviews you know will the proceedings below and because the trial court or the district court was compelled to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff appellant here in the evidence most favorable wasn't there was no investigation being conducted we established that we established that not one witness provided by appellants who for nine years has been trying to get an investigation conducted not one witness was ever interviewed contacted or otherwise our argument was and we submitted and that is the evidence most favorable to appellate was that there was not a criminal investigation being conducted what was being done was being done for an unlawful purpose that's the case before your honor's and if this is terribly disturbing to you as it is to mr were and all of us who have good conscience using only ones with the power to do sympathy for the for the situation you're describing an officer shouldn't be able to go out and get a search warrant just to harass somebody but the problem is we have to have some place where the line gets drawn for sure and in this affidavit there was you know if she had some documentary evidence and said here please take it that that's the problem but more importantly more importantly than that we get a little bit sidetracked when we say well gee there's some small quantum of evidence that the mother of a victim of a homicide is offering as of the rule is if i'm hearing you right and if i read your brief correctly is this is so bad that we should throw all those rules out the window and my question is that we're trying to write an appellate decision here how do you define what is so ban what is the standard what is it what is the point at which all of these other presidents rules melt away and you can say this is the rule that everybody has to follow what is how do you define  extremely worse than anything we've ever seen before and i'm as a district judge i'm afraid that would generate a lot of litigation if that were the standards but there's more to it your honor and that is that were kind of public policy we protecting well what kind of people are we protecting here very stark or you think the record makes it clear that there was no investigation or yes like you being conducted at this