may please the court counsel felt however for united states in this case the district court erred in three ways in suppressing the methamphetamine and other evidence found in the execution of the search warrant on the defendant's house first it made an unwarranted inference that the magistrate did not read or at least did not read carefully the affidavit simply because present in the affidavit there was a single drafting mistake second it found no probable cause for the search even though under the totality of the circumstances there was reason to believe that evidence of drug trafficking and contraband would be found in the defendant's house and third in apply the exclusionary rule despite the detective reasonable reliance on the sign search  now first as to the inference that the this report made that the magistrate didn't read or at least didn't read carefully the affidavit there was no testimony or evidence presented to the district court other than the presence of the air itself in the af davit that the magistrate failed to read or fail to read carefully the affidavit itself looking at at the affidavit it was five pages single spaced the error was at the end it was not in the probable cause section and it simply repeated language in the prayer that was repeated from the face of the search warrant on the face of the search warrant yes your honor i just want to it's if it looks as if this myself but if i read it i think usually we usually catch still wasn't that just reports actually say you know you never read it because he would have caught it but that's that's exactly what the district court did say  what the government would argue here is that the type of error the the that it was an isolated air it was in language that didn't describe the story of how the probable cause was developed to support the search and the reason why detective love was seach in the search warrant at this point in the investigation he was in language that repeated language from the face of the search warrant that the magistrate would have already read that those facts  face it's something that you would think a normal reader would pick up during the reading and ask questions about it and i think that's what the district court was concerned about saying why didn't anyone catch this while in fact detective love didn't catch it when he submitted it to i guess a natural mistake that any reader could make while reading the entire affidavit and there was simply no evidence put on by the defendant to support the idea that the magistrate failed to read there are cases breckenridge and decker out of other circuits where there is actually testimony by the issuing magistrate that the issuing magistrate acknowledges that he or she failed to read the affidavit or failed to read it carefully or there's a finding court based on the magistrate's testimony that the magistrate didn't read in this case there was no magistrate testimony the only evidence in the record on this point is detective love's declaration stating how  a rose and in fact the government at the franks at the end of the franks hearing proffered that word detective love the testified that detective love would testify that he sat as the magistrate read this the very rule detectives and officers seek warrants to seek official sanction for the searches that they desire to conduct investigations rather than doing warrantless searches so the strong preference in the case law is for  resort to the warrant process if any on a review of any single isolated areas such as this one can cause a reviewing court to be able to second guess the magistrate and throw out the rule of deference to the magi it undercuts the very policy behind that rule of of encouraging agents to resort to the word process second there was probable cause here whether or not whether or the behavior shows knowledge of the methamphetamine the presence of the methamphetamine which as much as could be collected indicated to the collected amount was a small amount so at the very least the defendant by the traffic stop just by it's later fixed they say all this was there so there was probable cause and it was really fine even though the magistrate didn't pass on it couldn't have because the critical part of it was missing well it at most your honor i think what happened here was some extraneous information was included in the affidavit that if exercised would not affect the probable cause equation one bit from from a so to the extent the court wanted to excise that portion and exclude the items found in the vehicle which were very minimal here then it could have done that but he didn't do that and i see might my time is coming i'd like to it please the court celia mcguinness appearing on behalf of mr noriega who's present your honor i don't believe this court is looking to rule that some part of an affidavit are less important than other parts of the affidavit i don't think this court should be in the in the business of judging well this mistakes ok that not that that mistake is not ok but secondarily the prayer is a very important part of decision was not clearly erroneous is that if the magistrate didn't catch that error which is frankly pretty glaring being coming where it's position then what does that say about the quality of the superior court judge review of probable cause and that is why the district court made the determination that the review of probable cause was not entitle to the usual read you just didn't read it through to completion but what do you read with the vision to carry the day and the warranty issue i think that your honor that would require speculation we question is what did the district court decide that it wasn't a clearly erroneous decision i think the district court correctly stated anybody who really read it would have gone through and lined out this problem and so it's evidence that they didn't really read it carefully and that i think the probably do mean the whole thing clear carefully if they missed that part so that's i mean the whole purpose of the warrant requirement is that somebody review what the police say and assert is sufficient for probable cause because the district court couldn't rely on the superior court to have done that then it was its obligation to ensure that the was judicial review of the totality of the warrant and the court concluded that there was there was not probable cause and i would like to address the question of probable cause of this court has concerns about are specifically states that the reviewing magistrate has already abandoned his or her judicial role then leon does not apply and also if it was on reasonable for the police to have relied on the affidavit then leon does not apply and i think both of those circumstances are here today and i think they are intertwined because the decision that the district that though the error was originally the police or by mixing and matching affidavits and putting in people who did not belong and then the judge compounded that er by missing it furthermore the can also the question is whether or not the judge wholly abandoned his responsibility to reveal the documents the district court made a finding that he did not read it or did not read it carefully his factual finding was that he did not read it in response later in response to the prosecutor's argument he said well if you didn't read if you did read it he didn't read it carefully but his actual factual finding in the transcript was that he did not read the affidavit therefore the after what evidence supports that the superior court judge missed reading the prayer which was not an insignificant part of the warrant is a significant part and any judge spirit court judge to the hearing we would have a better record than we do but on the record that the district court judge was given it was a reasonable conclusion for him to make that if you missed a significant piece of the warrant of the affidavit then he did not read it because otherwise we're in a position of saying we're going to guess that he read all the rest but not this piece i don't think that but i don't think there's another way to look at it  did not catch the prayers in the state if he didn't read any of it that's right but we cannot rely on his review in order to give it deference we can't rely on him it requires him to know review i have twenty two seconds left that's morning time i'm sorry i think it's really important that this court understand that the warrant that the police officer was willing to bring to the superior court a warrant based on one discredited stale confidential informant and the arrest and that the neighbor coming forward was really only icing on the cake so i reversed i won't be shocked given that that even the district court who ultimately found against probable cause here recognizes as a close one given the detective love conducted an investigation that he described in his affidavit  all indications in the record are the detective love recently really relied on the issuance of the search warrant there's nothing to indicate even if the magistrate didn't read the affidavit carefully as the district court ultimately  inferred there was no indication from the record that detective love knew or was aware of that or believes that and the suppression remedy is directed at to train police misconduct not trying to affect the behavior of the magistra for these reasons the government recommends a reversal thank you can't you can't just argue to submit it for decision the court will understand that in the next case that there is going to be argument on behalf of j or jaime his car out but not roberto is that correct all right so the court will take a five minute