warrant in this case he must have felt some assurance that the process that he was following was going to lead to some kind of a just result you know the probable cause  but he was mistaken on that assurance this was an unusual probable cause finding because there was no lapidary but there was a hearing in front of the judge in his courtroom under oath by the officer who was presenting the complaint as well i think that's not uncommon in state court no it's not in some counties  they did was they gave him a particularly where the state's attorney jacqueline lacy conducted the examination of the officer it gave the court some assurance that she had spoken with the officer knew the facts knew that what she was presenting was a probable cause finding but as we learned at the suppression hearing the officer admitted that he  didn't include a lot of detail about the informant not only for the court but for the state's attorney for instance he didn't tell the state's attorney that the informant he was working with judge chanted certainly had to give great deference to the the judge's finding that there was probable cause for the search warrant there's no question about that and judge shabda did find probable attempt to really argue the issue but as you now say great deference is required by illinois against gets and we have a situation in which both the state and the federal district j found probable cause that make it almost impossible to require exclusion of evidence even if we were to disagree given us against leon no because the judge issued the warrant he didn't have all the necessary facts that were important to a probable cause finding now you can say the judge shared it had more facts and therefore he made a proper decision but even he questioned the enforcer the officers credibility about how long he had worked with the informant the officer told the issu judge that he had worked with the informant off and on for sixteen to seventeen years leading to an inference that he worked directly with him and he could vouch for the verifiability of his information but at the suppression hearing he admitted that he never worked directly with the informant and that he only had a few dealings with the informant in the past few years he never described those feelings during his testimony and judge sherrod found it to be problematic that he was not forthcoming to the issuing judge so yes we have to issuing judge's conclusion but it was based on a flawed factual analysis from the beginning  officer didn't tell the issuing judge anything about the informant's prior convictions we know that he had served three prison terms he had five felony convictions  numerous misdemeanor convictions and i believe his last sentence was a ten year sentence in two thousand and eight so he was in prison for a long period of time in the run up to the transaction that he did with mr glenn on september th now the the other problematic thing about  the what he what he failed to disclose to the issuing judge was the fact that he already had the phone number that he was seeking from this warrant in fact the only specific going that he was seeking in the warrant was the telephone number of his original of his of the target of his investigation a man by the name of darryl johnson but the interesting thing was that the issuing judge when he asked the officer well how did your informant know that your target was the supplier of cocaine to mr glenn on the police officer could not articulate what the basis of that knowledge was and then again at the suppression hearing even when he must have been on notice that he would be asked a question like this he could not articulate is melissa ryan and i represent the united states of america as we're all aware now the issue here is whether the district court correctly found that agent album in your testimony in support of the search warrant for one come was supported by probable cause and the question is whether that was the correct whether he correctly found that where the comfortable source made the controlled by of two ounces of cocaine from gunpowder and where agents that there was a nd cell phone inside his house that contained a target object the contact information which was the alleged drug supplier glenn so we the government acknowledges that a lawyer did not provide the court with all the information that available to him at the time that he testified in support of the search warrant but the district court didn't air in finding probable cause under the circumstances here and that's because number one there was a controlled by two o oral argument about that controlled by the district court found that that controlled by was properly executed and i think that the elephant in the room for lack of better term is that that by with audio and video court the agent testified that obviously this or out of there did not testify in support of the search warrant that he had which this would be a little bit odd but that he had previously worn out other narcotics search warrant and front of the judge but he did testify to that and suppression hearing so i think you know the judge understood what a control by is and the judge understood that it was audio and video recorded and as this court has previously held evidence of drug trafficking is likely addition to that the told by going on the day of the search warrant told agents that he had two phones and that one was at home inside of health and that that was the phone that had the contact info for the target subject that the person with the confidential source with cocaine and the person that the agents already been investigating for cocaine trafficking and i'll be there told the judge as to a swing out the search warrant that in his training and experience drug dealers have multiple phones so not only was there probably cause for evidence of drug trafficking based on the fact that glenda drug dealer and this is his house there's probable cause to get the phone contained that targeted that contact information and eldorado stated that the agents already had the phone number that they were seeking in the warrant but that's just incorrect they had a previous film number and they didn't had they had previous phone number for the target subject they didn't have the current phone number at least the c hearing lay out the road map of the target subject drug trafficking network so they just knew that going was a drug dealer after conducting a controlled by the court previously held a drug dealing  didn't provide the judge information about the confidential sources motive or history he was unclear about his personal experience with c s and the facts are important that they were immaterial to the probably cause cocaine and that glenn was doing cocaine so ideally the bike all that information bearing on the reliability in the testimony or in the affidavit but it's our position that probable cause divides here because the result would not have been different had that info been  because the result would still be based on disc controlled by and grand statement so the slightest can comment that the district court made in regards to their testimony about how long he had personally known the and that we found him reliable in the past and he didn't even give any specific instances it was just a statement about our liability so we think that the district court side of can comment was i don't we say we think that this is not but looking at their bones conclusory search warrant it's certainly could have included more information but it was the testimony was such that a reasonable officer could rely on the judge's issuance of the search word about the transaction on september th what's important about what was left out of that transaction and in the testimony before the issuing judge is any evidence that this wasn't a one off transaction there was no mention about the informant setting up the transaction or that the transaction had been done previously by the informant and  significantly after the transaction was done there was there was no statement from the informant as to what occurred after residence in fact there's no evidence that he was actually inside the rubble to resi to see any other cocaine to arrange any other transactions to notice anything else that would give any indication that there was ongoing criminal activity at the residence so that more cocaine might