no dispute that the defendant was it was it has to be and was not brandeis and therefore his statements are not admissible but the overarching question before this court is whether the evidence found as a result of the state should that he felt it necessary to go into whether it was voluntary or involuntary because it was he thought it was fruit of the poisonous tree stopped i don't need to go any further and most judges do that they stop they don't go in the issues they don't think they have to and i don't don't see where he did it in this case i think you are correct that he did not go in but then i think it is undoubtable that it can be inferred from his statement that he found the police officers to be credible this is they have ma to determine whether the robot but doesn't the trial judge make that initial determination and if we don't think he made that determination we can't review it we're kind of put herself in the place of the trial judge if we're deciding whether it was voluntary well what we're looking at if you're looking at this point in time is not that we're assuming that you have read the record that you have that you're looking at pieces of the trial or run a determination and there's nothing explicit that he may rest determination or relied on they're making his decision it seems to me the way i read the record is that he's saying you know you didn't do anything wrong as far as think that the big conclusion here is is that he would have to find that the police officers were not telling the truth in order to of the day his brother was living he was a fully capable coherent sixty year old man he was only half three questions although there were other officers in the general area in the room only two near him and they were the only two that were involved in questioning him neither officer ran over or promise the defendant anything no guns were drawn the defendant very and i think twenty four twelve how many were in the this is is it in the evidence you know the norm if you go into a drugstore and you had a bit cool you normally purchased a box of pills or is this big or i don't from the definition i don't know consent we have the defendant who said that actually when it's brother did not the son did i think that right finding as to the credibility of these witnesses so that would be the only other alternative but here's this language that i think is very the original is there's really only one issue here which is what we're in for talking about through poisonous tree and we don't go beyond that because the judge whether he needed to make that statement whether he should have made that statement is rather immaterial he sat there and listened to the police officer who sat there and listened to the defendant he said that he found no are in the the in the way that the evidence was going whether it's physical evidence whether it's witnesses that are found those are questions of fact for the trial or to determine whether those those physical broods those cases are monumentally different from this case and putting the defendant was arrested for harassing his ex girlfriend and released on bond with a tiara during the investigation or during that arrest process the defendant close to what we have here we have the defendant being brought out of this house highs rather with at least ten officers in front of him in this regard he was arrested he was arrested on a traffic stop and it's also important no  that defendant son was also contain down the road of it coming home the officers pulled him over thinking he was this far now the pretense they gave it appears that it would mean sense of all of this was the traffic stop so that they could investigate the matter manufacturing attention that manufacturing nowhere in the record did they indicate to either the defendant son when they pulled him over or the defendant himself or his brother that he was being investigated for m there was a war the warrant was a teen later after the officer went into the home and obtained the bills which that brings me to another point and i apologize i'm jumping around but this was a medicine cabinet although well the defendant said it was in medicine cabinet the officer asked where's the medicine cabinet he told him the medicine cabinet was in the kitchen now it's it's realistic to believe that the defendant who at this point was can have standing at the park his car also the defendant's son was brought to the home in a police are also so he was at the home he was allowed to leave at some point during this time before the defender was taken to the police station and he went back up and got this his vehicle that he had been pulled over the defendant's testimony in the motion to suppress was that he told him not and he hollered at the officer is the officer still inside go with donald that's his brother's so his brother went inside with was not randoms he cannot give a voluntary statement based on the facts that are in this case he was in custody he was handcuffed he was being interrogated yes it was not in a police station and it was in his front yard infested it as such he was entitled to constitutional right appropriate miranda warnings the judge indicated that it was not it didn't matter that he was being arrested on another matter he was anything volunteer well you hit their intentions would be the police officers intentions whether the intentions like the officers were to try to get the defendant to force the defendant or committed you know some sort of inappropriate  way the mom talked to the officers if the defendant is not given his miranda warnings and he didn't the officer says you're under arrest or whatever the case may be and he says ok fine i did work you know whatever the case may be i'd like my attorney something to that effect miranda may or may not be given if the defendant after interrogation after that we made statements there and bought there would be involuntary is i don't believe so i don't believe that the poor was indicated that the defendant should have been randomize because he was not randomize any questioning that followed was a violation of the amendment right the court was a better judge of the credibility of all of the witnesses the testimony of the officers he did the judge did also in the transcript stated that words over the years that put all kinds of workers straight at hypertechnical rules on arrests and searches done by police officers i think it is an undue burden has gone to extremes the courts a period of this one has also indeed have also indicated that essentially and he sort of rules this rules i have to see how these rules are and really knew he could refuse to answer the officer's questions because later he refused the search of the home i don't believe that to necessarily be true he was still he was under arrest for outstanding traffic violations he was not until he was no matter chemicals or residue found none of the rest nothing in the home had any residue or any indication that there had been in that manufacturing going on the only thing was that the things and noticed that the defer that the the credibility comes into play and although the trucker did not state that the police officers were telling the truth when the defendant and his son were lying he merely stated that in a nutshell the officer's job is hard at this point you've been whole by so many different agencies and boards and rules have changed and more have been put in place bigger job is difficult doesn't mean that the defendant's rights are not violated because the officers might have a tough definition of artifice is both a lie and truth found no r s to me that means he found those police officers truthful if the police officers were telling the truth then the police the defendant did give them and so to him and everything that followed from there was appropriate for the  then i think the only thing you can do it is