that in fact he does have stand i believe though that's what happened in this case is frankly that the district court just missed the mark the analysis that the district court you just used had nothing to do with rule for one that we argued i think in this case rule forty one becomes the standard by which the warrant has got to be applied and then forty one only applies if we determine that based on our analysis this is  but it would appear right that there are both federal agents involved and state law enforcement involved tell us why the lower court's determination that was  state run affair if you will is wrong and your i'll tell you why i look at this and then we look at the case on this it's with the amount of involvement that the federal government had agent had this case there is almost no way to suggest this had anything to do with the state case everything about the case had to do with the federal investigation the package itself was seized down south by federal agents it was shipped up to mr inspector  he's the one that examined the package he's the one that called in the canine snick he's the one did sought the warrant the nizhni for the package to open up he's the one who directed the entire operation and the record is very clear on that and he in the trooper to help him out and the only thing the trip was going to do they were brought over a dog earlier days earlier and then on the twenty sixth when this all went down they were going to be assisting but it was his it was the inspectors investigation the whole way through so you're on to the fact that the court went on to say that this was somehow a state warrant kind of surprises me he said that in the war itself the troop mentioned cell phones in addition to the drugs he mentioned cell phones and the court found that because he mentioned cell phone somehow know that makes this a state let me ask you this are you making a twofold argument that number one it's federal therefore rule forty one applies and through forty one applies you have to find that the the warrant was obtained from a court of record and here it's obviously not a court of record because if you look at three zero one it about this particular case what happened here is that this is a different kind of war and this is an interest with where we want and because in this instance who forty one we're going to argue we argue clearly does apply under the federal law there's a heightened standard when it comes down to it just three warrants and because of that that's the i think that's exactly why the wall over the way it was that you have someone that is able to analyze what's being brought before the court as to whether or not it meets the proper criteria u asking that we formally adopt the factors set out in bedford i suppose the argument the other way would be that the factors set out in bedford would dick that are you are you  problem cause has to be attached to the warrant it gives the citizens affected a reasonable explanation of the grounds for the search explicitly pi's the time of the execution and the conditions of the trigger event into the warren itself it gives the officers limited time to perform the controlled delivery gives officers reasonal time to form the cold to delivery or the control delivery to avoid staleness and when the when the problem caused when actually exists and here this warrant was written so poorly that one would not know when the triggering event actually curse the war and states that there are twenty pounds of marijuana there about to enter this residence well and it's going to be part of a controlled delivery controlled deliberate they took most of the marijuana out i frankly don't find any they don't want to send that marijuana back into the community they have the marijuana they feel they are sending district judges we all could take judicial notice of the fact that this happens all the time is your honor except for this that warrant didn't go on to say anything more about the when when does the triggering event occur in that warrant when does probable cause exist and when when the when the magistrate signs the warrant it has to happen at that time has to be a date certain in the future or time specific when probably cause will exist in order for this and just to our search warrant to hold stream by the officers and it's going to be how exactly does marijuana beat well there's nothing here and i mean that's just me as i've said because nothing in the morning i got a question going back further the fact that the whether this is a state or a federal prosecution the panda in large part on what is in the back and when you find out that there's twenty pounds of marijuana in the package they decide well that's what this is this is getting sizable this ought a federal prosecution if there were two ounces of marijuana in the package i think you would have had the opposite choice made that this will be a state proceeding and so the fact that this is federal postal inspectors at that moment time he could have made that determination some of turn this over to the state but instead he didn't he took control kept control and when all the evidence was seized from the home that agent collected the agent kept himself so it's clear on to these under and the other interesting thing i want to point out of the court is is that the the investigating trooper inspector across he knew about rule forty one he had it in his earlier warrant that he had given to the magistrate when he got the warrant over the package in the first place he is a seasoned inspector and he knows full well that the four one one supply just one last question is is part of your argument that along the lines of what corrado knew and didn't know that district judge in the second instance your honor clearly from the record there was no problem with availability and i was very specific in my questioning of the inspector entry prover cash at the hearing there was no problem of availability just miles was available in the morning that the ma were or guides if you will the federal inspector and what his duties are supposed to be and he knew what they were and he shirked those responsibilities around he knew that they work as he did it really in the morning and then the afternoon shirts that because he didn't want to create extra additional paperwork that's that's also outlined in the testimony he the court my name is terrible and i represent the united states of america first addressing the first issue whether or not it's federal in character i would disclose the court that is not in fact one of the things that's been pointed out by judge roth is in fact that what we have here is after they open the and our experience that we should look at and say this is better all of this is they do or should we look at the actions of the actors involved i think you look at both i think you look at a tally of all the circumstances and here let's go from there at the time that they open the package they find  they did the charges in fact we have state charges in this particular case we had a cleaner hearing this but the case all of that there's suggestions that this was a would have been a state case but for the fact that they ought to be fined eight hundred  four packets of heroin in addition to raw heroin a substantial quantity of packaging sawed off shotguns other shotguns other firearms ammunition at the point that the package was opened i think that is very clear disha that would have been a state case it's does not make it federal character but i have more actors should we be looking at there any guidance that we have an arduous sorrells for i think there's a there are a number of factors to look at  and kind of the case that they talk about federal in character in fact the supreme court in virus said that mere participation does not bred render it a federal undertaking and that's what we have here and i think even if we look at some of the factors of course the weight be substantial whether or not the there's a specific target whether or not the type of controlled substance that is i think that all factors i don't think that you can be pigeon holed to say well this is the limited number of factors i think you have to look at everything look at in addition and as what you said judge is the fact that you also look to the character what the they do actors in this particular case the reason that the postal inspectors were involved is they had to be postal mail can only be opened in certain parts attained by federal postal inspectors not even other federal law enforcement agencies has to be postal so we get to that and i think the other thing too is i think we rely on the district court and i know understand that the district court's decision is somewhat scant in this regard it was an issue that was raised at the very end of the suppression hearing itself but i think the district court did make a factual finding that this was a state case that it was not f disagree with the district court would you concede that there would be a rule forty one if if the court was were to held that there would be federal in character i think that that satisfies the first part of the next is that the court of record and i know there's a there's a actually some conflict about whether or not it's a court record i say that because forty two pennsylvania consolidated statutes three twenty one says that all courts of the and i think it's i think the court considers a technical violation i don't think suppression would be appropriate i think it's similar to halt where you have a return of a search warrant and the reason i say that is because there's no lesion of the fundamental fairness due process the fourth amendment there is probable cause clearly in this case and so i don't think you get to the stream remedy of suppression in a case we're talking about principles of fairness and i think that to well what's the purpose of proof of i'm just trying to think because based on what you've just said right i would never find that there should be any real remedy to rule forty one violation right because if i'm looking at the principles of fairness and or more lofty goals i would i would never get to suppression right because i'd say well you know everything was followed it was just followed by the wrong court you know there were the correct determinations made probably cause it cetera so we can let it go that that's seems a little odd well your honor i would i would respectfully disagree with the court i think that there could be cases where that a violation of rule forty one it would result in suppression in cases of bad faith for example and i think byers somewhat spoke to that buyers with more pointed toward that there was some bad faith they didn't address really a good fit exception because they said they really did it it was with the tax stamp so it really was a federal crime they brought in the federal agent knowing that and with that knowledge i think there's some  reason disha that there's some bad faith that's not what we have here in fact just the opposite the in this particular case we have the the state police trooper actually testified that he acted in good faith that he had done this before that this is who he goes to the local magisterial district judge is the key in these and what's the what's the reason for the change from a federal magistrate judge to magisterial district judge  right i mean one was available went to bed straight judge the first instance got what they needed it's a continuing investigation when you just go back well there's certainly there certainly wasn't as there's an assumption that's made that the federal magistrate judge would have been available most likely i'm not certain of that because it wasn't done in this particular case at the kind that it was opened in all parties realized it was marijuana the h went to obtain the anticipatory search warrant from the local magisterial district judge the there is evidence in this the test that was announced by the second circuit in burke in terms of what remedy should be  and i would often note that there's no prejudiced and further one of the things that was said is that it's not constitutionally significant and it's that again a similar to haul in that regard a third circuit course where it's not constitutionally significant the violation of forty one a in this case we do have probable cause we do have a neutral detached magistrate we don't have any way in which the if they already see their federal or state violated anything in terms of being untruthful  providing deliver information fact that there was nothing that was deliberately untruthful that wasn't even anything that was incorrect in the anticipatory search warrant the and i again i would point that  forty one is not the exclusive authority to provide for search warrants and that's clear and how do we know that's clear we know it's clear because district court judges are not even referenced in real forty one in fact they're reference nowhere in the rules but clearly district court judges have the authority to issue search warrants there's the there's in fact they're empowered it's and it's uniformly assumed that the federal district judges have the power to do  so one of the things that was addressed to by counsel was that there's a different standard for and it is the tory search warrant and that's just absolutely not true anticipatory search warrants or health of the same standard of probable cause that's  court's decision in grubb's you have to have the three findings that it's now probable that contraband will be found at the location at the time the search warrant is executed in this case the triggering event was very clear as well the triggering event is as stated on the packages except that which in his prophecies is taken inside the residence that's the triggering event and obviously the next part of the beat is not the trigger event but that's was stated in there as well that it will i roth what's contained in the package is not material what's material is that the package was accepted and that's exactly what we have here there was a sham as well as a small quantity of the controlled substance that was delivered in that and there's  asked about is is standing and certainly standing is an issue in this case in courses the court is very familiar with put away one of the things that it would slate's the real here in this case we have something very different and why it's different is as follows it's different believe standing a big part and i said have you we've argued the government did not waive challenging in fact below in fact i don't we that that's something i think this case all it supports that that's not something that the government we be able to waive this case law that indicates that we can simply waive that but what's here is we have a package that's delivered to an individual derek brown it's clearly it's there's no indication that that's the  ego of cory golson and i'm just going to refer to him as cory golson sr they're not actually junior senior but as of the court's aware that is the father i'm referring to no indication that's his or ego but we have the package being excepted and opened by someone else it's not wasn't he wasn't the individual that sent the package his name was not listed on the package itself he didn't sign for the package and again it's there's no evidence that the author ego i would so i would say that the defendant does not have standing if the court were to find standing getting into the next issue that they raised the way i would submit to the court that the delay was reasonable we're talking about a friday and two days weekends of saturday sunday it's not unreasonable based upon all the present that we have in this particular case gil locks may only they talk about weekends and we not being unreasonable periods of time you raise the standing issue in the district court we did we the standing issue was not raised at the district court we soon for purposes of the proceeding that there was standing so doesn't stern preclude you from making the argument no i don't believe so your honor again i think that there's the support that standing is always something that exists even if the government with theoretically to say we're not going to address standing it still would exist at the appellate level and it would be the government's position i think there's a there's coup support for that as well and again i think that in terms of this this standing we want society one of the things that was addressed and in the course decision is do we want society to recognise this in this particular case is there an expectation of privacy but is that reasonable is it reasonable to expect have an expectation of privacy is something that's not addressed to you something that's addressed to someone else where there's no evidence against his burden there's no evidence that it is all three go and there's no evidence or actually there is evidence here that was delivered to another who accepted it indicated that that's the name signed for an further took possession and went further even for possession actually opened the package itself again i think based upon that there would be no standing getting into the argument terms of the if the court were to find the delay we still have enough when the supreme court's decision and for vs harris because we have a probable cause that was that based upon the dogs of just a dog hitting even if they had not opened that package i think that would be probabl cause that led to the anticipatory search warrant that would be sufficient and again with the suspect or a search warrant i think the district court below made a determination that this was not federal character that this was a state case fact the evidence is used because that would be in every single case here there is otherwise there is no presence prejudice to defendant i believe that essentially is the government's argument that we don't have a silver platter doct issue and the mere participation again based upon the supreme court's decision does not render this better if you're do dome up with agent corrado he was in on the arrest yes he was there that day he did not make the arrest that was the pennsylvania state police and who did also did the interview and followed up and file charges ok thanks so much that you apply based on the entirety of this investigation that is bad argument in the absence of a then why would why should that technical violation as it's been quit the two suppress your own or bad faith in this particular instance the officer inspector cracow knows the law he knows that he has to follow rule forty one he's done so in his earlier work that he did when he isn't a technical violation and his own words he didn't want to create more paperwork he snubbing his nose at what the rule requires it is a no but if you just ok so you can see that if he did in your war as as you've down the paperwork we'd be in the same place right i'm coming from well the package would have been intercepted and it would have led to the scenes of circumstances that we find ourselves and now except for one problem and i think goes back to what just messed with asking about is there and i disagree with counsel there is a heightened standard under the begin case issuing measure its must treat and to swear warrants under forty one with more caution than traditional warrants so there's more there and if you take a look at this more and no no learned and i don't mean to be disrespectful to the d j martin but no learned counsel would have seen a triggering event here there this thing is analysis would be a higher scrutiny it goes to show why the law would require a magistrate as opposed to a district justice because they would recognize the heightened standard of that just for warrant and that warrant does not have enough in it following the