involved in criminal activity as an initial matter weeks of near constant surveillance established the g street house was a stash house for undocumented aliens that much was evident from the agent's observation of the frequent flow this here is that came but did not leave as well as brawley into the interior of the united states so it was against that backdrop that border patrol agents saw the defense counsel the didn't they determine the agents decided to stop the car and order it stopped before they got to the us to correct and so the then made the get there which really limits the number of options here if they stay on the i eight then could be it when would be agents be entitled to conclude that they were going to take it over to the i five and then north of los angeles or that they would take the want to live and i mean they're sort of trapped in the way they go i i think the court's point that there that many of the highways in southern california are considered smuggling routes but i think this court is sort of squarely rejected the argument that just because there are a number of smuggling routes and southern california that precludes a court from giving weight to any route that  and in this case i think the facts are a little bit more particular than that as to is not a major highway is a two lane road and agents knew that the the smuggling organization connected that particular house had used as to just the week before so i think that provides a little bit more basis than what the court suggesting but really you have lots of evidence that there was a smuggling house going on the defendant's vehicle at that place and then the defendant using it has to that's it correct actually makes it anywhere other than they saw him go in and out of the house there's no finding that that was somehow suspicious nothing does that's that is true and i understand the court's reluctance to rely on those facts given the lack of development but briefly i'll just say th quantum events you have about whether or not a residence is a stash else there can be as reasonable suspicion to stop anyone coming out of that house this is quite a different situation than when someone is stopped in like a general high crime neighborhood on high crime street this is a specific house for which agents had had under surveillance for two or three weeks and had made a number of had made an arrest coming from that surveillance and had seen a number of what they believed to be undocumented had the agents been able to tie saviano to this house  house the walking back and forth in front of the house once they got there and to party one has to earn enough to support the still suspicion here unless the court has any further questions and nobody ever saw anybody get in the in that truck route in the f one ten they did not but with the end they were they were looking right at it and didn't see anybody going from the stash house where they believe people were in to the f one town correct although what they call saviano going from the stash house and into the f one ten but nobody else and that's that's what they that's asians didn't see it doesn't mean that it didn't happen and second there but we have yeah but that's after the stop this is this is what they know before the stop correct but i will also say that i will also say that the agents were radioing out as soon as the truck left the house that they believe that see whether or not some was coming out of the house and the car that would mean anybody that was parked there would have they would have reasonable suspicion to believe that depending on the angle of which what they're parking what the agents could see at that point perhaps yes well any any angle that they could actually see the front door the trail to the car would create from your perspective reasonable suspicion to stop i agree but again we have a little bit more than that here and they want to as to which is the smuggling route connected to this particular house and thank you and remind me how we connect the air to to this particular house so two weeks they were never disputed the only dispute during the adventure hearing was whether or not agent would hum had been able to see people in the back of the truck but it isn't then then we become fact finders at this level to a certain except extent except for those facts were undisputed they concise precise ruling the district court found that specifically they disbelieve the agent that testified in this case a material fact it's pretty clear from the record that  that this is this is a weird home on the yes that's yes sure but the governor says they're not relying on that fact well they're not rely not in now but they did in the district court but they're not relying on it now that's exactly what they said in their briefs but i don't think that this court can ignore what the district court was considering but even taken that the fact of the matter is they waited an hour before they stopped this vehicle the tapes of the dispatch tapes which were revealed indicate that the agent only stopped the vehicle because he didn't want to follow it all the way to campo or the boulevard if they'd had found that suspicion because they saw somebody outside the house they watching the house if they thought if they stop fifty miles down the road there's less of a connection feel like they never made that argument in the district court and i honestly would respectfully think that some believe it's a crime is being committed they just wouldn't wait fifteen minutes i didn't see driving that far would bear any relation at all to the agents having the thought they didn't want to blow their cover there was no testimony to that effect in the in the lower court no one's ever made that argument that what was following them were the unmarked cars the young our cars were fine that's correct right and they had to actually signal to get marked cars yes but they didn't signal for about forty minutes so if they'd had sounded suspicion they could have called  reasonable inference that there was no founded suspicion because had there been found suspicion they would have stopped the vehicle long before fifteen minutes or an hour and they would have stopped the vehicle right after saying they didn't want to follow it all the way to ca boulevard the dispatch makes it clear they did not want to continue this pursuit and that they didn't have any reason to stop the car that's a reasonable inference and so the car proceeded they couldn't find anything they got tired as the agent said on the tape he didn't want to go all the way to campbell boulevard like he did the last time this sucks to me that makes it pretty clear why they were stopping the car in addition to that the government never called the individual agent alexander was the one purportedly that made the decision to stop the car he wasn't called by the government the government in call anyone to testify as seen any of this activity outside the house so i think the general rule is if you review the findings and light most favorable to the prevailing party and only reversed for clear factual error i don't see any basis for clear factual error i think the government has the burden they haven't met it that he didn't beat it into district court and i would respectfully request