versus fernando's post you know your to look at the reliability incra credibility of the source of the information you're supposed to look at the temporality issue in terms of when the information was received by the officers and you are supposed to determine whether or not there was indeed pending crime or rationed of a crime occurring if you apply those factors in these in this case you have a situation where we have no idea exactly what the credibility of this informant and this informant was in custodial status the morning of mr de hans actual rest he had plenty of incentive to lie or to talk or incriminate somebody else in order to get out we weren't allowed to follow up on that as a part of the reasonable suspicion here there were liability the informant has been we've been told it's going to credibility we don't know even one of the officers admitted that this particular informant had some kind of a product fans on his record but we weren't allowed to get into determination of reasonable suspicion you are allowed to engage into the type of kookery that you're telling us was not done i think if would you answer that question ok i'm sorry where they were talking about documents we're talking about here alive informant so i'm just curious as to how you extrapolated from that your argument that you weren't allowed to delve into the motive to inquiry where did i come up with that i in my mind if something is a reasonable basis to be suspicious of something it needs to be reliable i'm asking you what pace authority supports that feeling your mind thought having the informant reveal his name his or her name identity but i did ask about whether there was drug use or whether or not  so unreliable and they just dismissed his but was not really identity being revealed and without his credibility being revealed and without any independent corroboration of the scene of the crime or that it actually occurred like the informant was saying i think all those together make this make this unreasonable i don't think there was any reason that it wasn't reasonable to say ok you can identity and pride informant has probably got a prior conviction and we won't tell you about his propensity for drug use or his custodial status or whether he's bargaining did bail out of jail this morning and in return for revealing upon the officers to make sure he was credible and they didn't say anything reliable two times in the past on the other hand he was at the time inactive can informant and he did have pride on his record and we don't know what his motives were but we can guess is motive was to get out of jail do you know why we're here either sneaking feeling why is there anything else and is there anyone else involved do you see anybody you're not my brother i acted alone and the government argued that this was a conversation support they they are or at one point they argued well they're not relevant we're not going to use the new anyway but i think that's just a roundabout way of getting out of the argument that those initial statements that were definitely incriminating if they were and try going to heaven they were incriminating the answers were they were so close in time right behind the actual mirandize conversation that took place three and a half hours later at the secret reasonable suspicion and even under the for managed to steal case that this would be more than sufficient because he was a known quantity who was a known informant and they had they could act upon his his information as well even if we didn't have reasonable suspicion we don't need it as we have pointed out him at length in our brief and i just like to touch on that very briefly and that is that there are basically situation and back to that grows out of the series started in the in the in the california line of cases climb which is the california law enforcement officer who lie of specifically with regard to this case is if you'll recall in this case this provision officer was out there as a probation officer that was his duty and it was very clear from the transcript that he was there simply to ask compliance questions and to find out who the grounds for violation so in this particular case he was acting as a probation officer and i was looking at records show that he functioned primarily as an investigator and not the record shows he could functioning as an investigator that would be one thing but in this case he was not he was functioning purely as a probation officer and he would have simply taken the results of his investigation as probation investigation and taken it back to the  that that's ok but that's that happens and the the california statutes are set up to provide for that and in fact i was and that that came in even federal probation officers could function as investigators as where he was it was not a miranda type situation because he was not being interrogated for criminal for criminal purposes use being interrogated for compliance purposes that's number one number two is i of the compliance questions they were asked well they were asking what he was doing as is what you what are you doing here what's going on i mean they say they have a flavor of an interrogation of asking for incriminating information but they still was not to not to do anything except possibly violate this person's formation if that's true then why oppose a motion to suppress the use of those statements in a criminal trial w we because we did not want that to be carried over as a team is due to the secret service interrogation we didn't we didn't need those statements because because the man confessed i mean we didn't need to but it's a voluntary statement that's true in every way if anything the statement that the secret service was a voluntary voluntary statement because this particular individual when he was told by the secret service agents we have to talk about your right i mean wouldn't you couldn't it conceivably affect the remaining super bright you still on civil rights yes yes yes and it is possible that it could have some impact however we did attempt to distinguish the hurt of the case based upon the fact that just because home to a higher term because if anything the court just reports all constrained by the upper limit of the guideline range not necessarily by the lower limit of the guideline range so in this instance it with the seventy eight other regions running to his house who found incriminating evidence within five minutes of their being at the house he was certainly harassed in any statements he made would be in my mind coerced because police officers hope asian officer wearing bulletproof vests and police on their jackets they run into the house on probation that if you're on probation you might suspect that a probation