may please the court fred rally jr for the government the district court suppressed evidence found after federal agents arrested the defendant for participating in the stolen treasury check transaction the court concluded that the agent's lack of probable cause to believe the defendant was involved in the transaction in the government maintains that was there now it was undisputed below that the agents have probable cause to believe that some criminal activity was taking place the agents were listening in over a wire as a man named michael passed provided one hundred forty thousand dollars in stolen treasury checks to a confidential informant and in fact the agent hired collins to that person to  think that the facts taken individually are not but as a whole they are in the undisputed facts are these it is important to know that the agents had reason to believe that other conspirators were coming to deliver show up to the transaction and then during the transaction itself passed says my guys are coming with the four hundred at that point he goes downstairs and is waiting in his car when the defendant drives up in the cadillac and then another car pulls up on the other side of then after that you cars pull up on either side of the car where we know the past is waiting for the book for the delivery of stolen treasury checks that the defendant gets out and talks to the driver of the toyota now taking a step back in viewing this activity from the perspective of an agent who has reason to think that there's more than one source might show up it's reasonable to infer that the defendant was involved in the stolen treasury check transaction now it might not be enough to prove the defendant guilty but this is probable cause they know that there is a transaction taking place and the only question is whether it's reasonable to infer that this defendant is involved and knew how much  say now the government in its brief argues that it's reasonable to infer from the from the circumstances that that the affidavit does say that the few cars pulled up and that after the two cars pulled up flores got into the land rover with passed and then the defendant was  next that a toyota talking to its driver it's reasonable to infer from those facts the floors came from one of the two cars and what even is if he didn't he's got floor as inside the land rover at a time when the agents know that ass is going to take delivery of stolen treasury checks it's also important to note that this was a significant transaction in the meetings leading up to this final transaction the informant and michael past have been talking about the transaction in which two million dollars installing treasury checks would be exchanged for two hundred thousand dollars in cash in over the wire the agents here michael passed first of all deliver one hundred forty thousand dollars in stolen treasury checks and second of all saying my guys are coming with the four hundred the activity in the parking lot and so it's work colleagues got to do with it i think it's relevant your honor because this is what the agents knew when they were watching this activity take place i understand that yes but they're breathing in on c trafficker was waiting and to see and then i saw another car pull up and park on the other side of that car so you have what appears to be a coordinated parking parking job in the event it is involved so the best best you can say is that the agen to think that a person is involved in criminal activity that you are observing there is probable cause and the whole question is is it reasonable to draw that inference here and the government's admits that given this what appears to be coordinated parking they don't know for sure but it appears to be coordinated parking then the defendant gets out and talks of the driver of the other car and that conversation is taking place in the parking space next to where past is taking delivery of where the good place the well is with those over there you know the government can't exclude that possibility that's true on the other hand in this in activity can give rise to probable cause and the standard is not is it a certainty to get back to your first question there is nothing in the ass of david explicit about the nature of the parking lot we know that it's nine o'clock and the court can apply common sense and it's unlikely that the strip mall parking lot would be packet nine it can it could consider what a reasonable officer would would think you given the fact that the district court concluded were made by don't generally fact finders right yes or i mean you're not and we don't have any findings supporting your position from the district you're one of the i believe the dish in the way the district court ruled was the observations mean by the officers are those that are set forth in the complaint because the court viewed the complaint as being contemporaneous we have to reverse the sentence facts of the saw and those are the undisputed facts that are that are set forth in the complaint affidavit together with what they heard which is moralizing that transcript they were entitled to consider were the ones in the affidavit that that's right and that the that's right all right so we've got those facts yes and then do their do they not amount to probable cause that's right that's the way the government's government's argument i'd like to start by clarifying that the mistake that i made was not in laying out what the district court's findings were but in my interpretation or my summary of what the court's findings were in fact when we look at the criminal complaint there is no finding from the district court that when collins was even observed to arrive in the catalogs or that he was observed executing the cadillac there's up similarly no finding of fact that and cardinal flores was observed executing the great different case in a he it he argues concerted effort joint activity but spring will involve three people in an automobile and that was intrinsic in the supreme court finding was that three people taking an automobile may have a joint motive to conceal evidence of a crime or to act in concert here we have a very distinct from situation we have three cars parked in the can second consecutive salt we have the person who's observed entering passes vehicle we have going home and standing court's findings that the only credible evidence was that what was contained in the complaint and there was good reason for that i mean as the court is well aware the the evidence presented on the point whether or not dated october twenty eighth of two thousand and three where he states that he did see columns x of the vehicle so you know going back and reviewing the matter it's no surprise that the court didn't make any findings in this regard as to whether or not district court did construe the complaint to or made any reference to the defendants arriving at the white cadillac in the government's opening brief that tried to take a cautious approach in argue that the court oxygen or all the inference that the defendant came on in one of the two cars and it didn't matter which one for probable cause purposes it does say in the complaint and this is something the district court didn't focus on but the complaint actually says at the beginning that the defendant drove a conspirator to a meeting it just doesn't was consistent with the position that the government took at the hearing that that to yest and that was the position taken by the government the district court rejected that position your honor and the government on appeal issue is taking the district were there were two people in the cadillac two people in the toyota the district court appear to rely upon some notes made by another agent some some months later suggesting that there was one in the cadillac three in the toyota and i think for that reason the court rejected the testimony and limited the facts to what was in the affidavit but the court didn't really focus on this statement at the beginning of the affidavit s