first issue all address is the search warrant issue on the first topic there is the government's claim that defense counsel a trial waived the suppression issue by saying no objection when evidence that was the subject of the suppression motion was offered in evidence like the drugs on the phone well it's not just a matter of saying no objection and you waived it the case law the circus case law says you have to consciously and intentionally wave it and there are a lot of facts in this record that indicate that defense counsel had never would have consciously and intentionally waived the suppression issue the first reason is the counsel knew that this evidence t let's just leave it at that and then everybody knows that there's no intent to waive anything but the problem is though sometimes the judges look over to the defense table and say the exhibits been offered is there any objection so well you know if you haven't set it up ahead of time exactly or can't just say nothing you have to set it up ahead of time that that's it doesn't really there's no mutual understanding if it isn't done but here the defense earth you certainly made this point ok just one more one more thing defense counsel was told by the judge at a hearing prior to trial that your suppression motions i thought would be an easy call i was going to be able i thought i'd be able to suppress the evidence which your brief was so good i had worked really hard on this was a lot closer call than i thought it was your brief was really excellent ok defense counsel his client hear that ok the defense counsel is not going to trial the idea i'm going to waive this consciously and intentionally he was just an oversight on his part moving to the merits the problem with this warrant is it's a cut and paste of a warrant issued a week earlier that was never executed for a different vehicle and that which are you talking about the price for war now and and the price there weren't yes that was  know i'm going with the warrants for the chrysler three hundred and i'll go to the chrysler yes i'll get that but this is all the same issue for the tracker warrant so what i'm saying here for this warrant largely applies replace a certain extent to the track  awards because they're based on informants with no basis knowledge no stated basis or reliability and this applies to all of them because they all incorporate that same informant information i know but you really got an uphill on that one well here's  sided reliable and it's adequate reliability i thought you were going to focus on there was no probable cause to go from the g p s searching tracking to the search of the chrysler i well  says these people are automatically reliable because we stamp a label c r i am i thought the record was we've got four or five confidential informant selling different law enforcement officers the same thing well similar things yes all right but they don't say how you know there's there's i'm going active drug distribution but defended using multiple vehicles and not one of them says how they know any of that so what kay says that you need that as long as there's a track question you have a case that makes this point and that i would be interested in that that's going to have versus gates and i'm not saying that you know that's general law act i'm the question he asked about the basis of knowledge is there a case that makes your point about base of knowledge or would this be breaking new ground not if i could not find one in the circuit no i you could knowledge that how about not upset about another circuit or a state court nor anybody i'm simply saying that the rule in light of supreme court precedent search warrant application why isn't that ok well the not getting anything it would be one thing if that chevrolet the one for the chevy pickup issued a week earlier if they had executed that and found some drugs but they didn't they didn't do anything with that warrant they could be said i didn't have the opportunity to execute it tracking tracking is not searching for drugs that i thought that i thought the tracking generally corroborated that there were three cars in play and they were traveling from duluth the to chicago and returning at times through world wisconsin i mean there was a lot of corroboration of what the informants that this was going on but this one says that only as  camaro and the chevy pickup it doesn't cite any tracking information to say that we believe that the vehicles now in the twin cities chrysler warner you time exhibit number four that the last one of the search the search warrant yes there was a chrysler was a deputy up in sagal county whom they're just feeding this information has no idea about anything not part of the investigation whatsoever he has no information that this vehicle is even in the twin cities and there's nothing in the wanted to say now got a warrant for the chevy pickup well i mean if you read it it makes no sense why are you fine fine put that in there but that's where it ends there's nothing about that the chevy or the chrysler three hundred so they've and how you rely on good faith when the affiant has no idea that the vehicle whether the chrysler three hundred is even in the twin cities is even in a position to pick up drugs is even coming back they started the process of getting this warrant before the chrysler three hundred was even in the cities they do this early in the afternoon on the nineteenth heep there's testimony about that in the motion hearing transcript and in the trial transcript so they've got well i i don't think the numbers of judges who did it necessarily makes it valid but the my plan is that they're just getting this in shotgun fashion the vehicle they don't even know the vehicle is on its way yet they didn't know that till later but they were already in the process of getting these warrants they just want to warrants in place i know from your brief is that the chrysler was tracked in the twin cities on the nineteenth and that's the night that they found that stated  yes yes but they didn't put that in the warrant that's not in the warrant well the in the learn is the basis for the search and they are not indicating to the judge that we even have a reason to believe going to the twin cities in the camaro on september eighth came back drove through areas wisconsin looked like you might be dropping off drugs which they don't know they didn't they were just basically surmising and then the same thing for the chevy pickup that's all they the warrant he has no information that well k well this you know it is down there right now you know there's probably a basis to think it's picking up drugs now if if if the warrant is faulty only because there was not information put in the warrant affidavit that in fact the investigating officers knew that chrysler was there and in this circumstance suspicious circumstances that night  why you just assert leon doesn't apply why doesn't leon why in that situation well they're entirely unreasonable to look at this warrant and to think that they had a basis to stop patrick's vehicle different inquiry than whether the fire and in the in the issuing magistrate should have known there wasn't enough here well i agree the cases say officers but i think you have to look at the affiant i mean they that's how they got this w kept the f ing in the darkness to how little information there was i mean to my rebuttal time thank you court affirmed the district court's judgment as well as the district court's assessment with regard to the four search warrants that you've already asked counsel questions about like to start just with the probably cause analysis and the determination that there basis for each one of those for the search warrants the issue i'd like to make sure they just take it from the top each one of those four search warrants a verdant began with a description of the task force and their understanding of circumstances and that was that mr patrick had a lengthy criminal history both at the state and federal level that included methamphetamine distribution but also violent crimes they in fact say they are familiar with him based on th conduct it also then begins to describe these four separate confidential reliable informants and understand that at least based on your briefing that you were reluctant or the officers were reluctant to put in the a if a deal breaker it seems that that does certainly closer to probable cause if you can give the magistrate some reason why these individual people would have this information certainly or there could be but i know that well in all of our cases i mean there's no bright line standard when it comes to basis of knowledge especially in this case given mr patrick history agents were definitely reluctant to do so and instead they there's no no pretty general understood around it well i think that each each one of the affidavits continue with different agreements with regard to the informants themselves and in the context of each one of those particular provisions there giving at least some information with regard to immediate or more contemporaneous information but still not that not the best of what you're saying is that you don't think you have to put in any basis that knowledge is sort of what i'm getting from the answer and yes your hon more importantly and clearly veracity reliability and basis of knowledge this any aguilar factors are part of just the totality of circumstances analysis but it is not the end all be all in this circumstance the agents focused on providing reliability information which they did for all four of those individuals and then as the district court found and the magistrate judge before found there were specific examples of how they had a track record with law enforcement how they'd use those informants successfully and they went with that instead of going with this basis of knowledge and in essence outing each one of the informants and that did bear out to be the case in the circumstance that was demonstrated during the sentencing hearing  of three weeks before the original trial date some point in time in may of two thousand and sixteen a couple months before or about a month and a half before it went to trial think it might have been even been in april of that year and i don't mean to be making too much of a big deal of this but it seems to me that once you accept war and the assumption would be that mr patrick would be in custody so whether those people were named then or later might not be a significant difference for  yes agreed that might be the case ron or i think with mr patrick he already and it's described in your every one of the affidavits he had a history of in essence creating false alibis he had gone to trial in an earlier matter proceeding matter the agents were conscious of the fact that mr patrick upon learning information about informants was likely to try to do something about what they had told law enforcement each one of those informants and again that bore out to be the case we had a relatively lengthy presentment at sentencing with regard to obstruction of justice because of the false alibis that he had created in fact it was in those informants were a part of that false alibi provision in fact before trial a decent amount of our pretrial preparation was dealing with the possibility of mr petrie putting in false alibi tests have some monier evidence in the form of letters other things and some of the informant coding to in particular were a part of his match nations pretrial and after trial mr petrak again using the names of some of the informants approached them had other people his agents approached them your honour's all ask questions with regard to the totality of the circumstances for each one of the respective tools that were applied for it four separate different judges reviewing each one of these respective tools every one of these for purposes of a to circumstances analysis paint a picture of mr patrick recently out of prison has begun selling significant quantities of methamphetamine and that he's working with and the reed other individuals to do so and they by name identify some of those known other and methamphetamine dealers combination of the information each one of these judges were warranted in concluding that there was a fair probability that evidence might be garnered with regard to investigating mr patrick and affairs this goes specifically to the g p s information where they just they're telling that court respective lee each one of those courts your honor we need to know where this guy's going we think you might be going to see other people and that's what the request was and each one of those judges said you know what that is there's a fair probability that you're going to garner that kind of evidence the fourth search warrant focused ricers search warrants because you're you have the most significant one just around why why why have probable cause ordered for that warrant supported by information known but not included in the affidavit the purpose of the probable cause analysis your honor physically the night at the cousin's house  with chrysler parked there looking just at the environments in the search warrant and the district court evaluated this as well as the magistrate judge and i know they addressed the same complaints that are made here with regard to the sufficiency of the allegations comprehensive totality of circumstances analysis and you brought this up in questions with counsel we're looking at an ongoing drug distribution investigation they discuss in that fourth search warrant the circumstances around the other vehicles as well as the fact that mr patrick is known to own and has admitted ownership of that chrysler three hundred only a couple of months before admitted it to law enforcement most certainly ferran problem for think that warrant would have cost to shortly named all three vehicles  they might find contents tied to the methamphetamine investigation there's a focus on there the fact that there's there's no vermin that we've seen mr patrick with drugs or that drugs might be found that are the source language it was from the search warrant and he's making clear to everyone he understands what the there's this temporal issue with regard to the silverado truck of her meant but looking at what the judge was presented with that day that evening and i want to make sure that we're clear the record made clear that the agents are out doing what they need to do to try to figure out what mr patrick is doing that night there was constant ongoing surveillance they followed him down and they had seen him they had seen him earlier in the day driving the truck and the teal camaro was on was being pulled by it he was taking the camaro to another residence and within just an hour or two later he's in the chrysler three hundred and on his way down to the twin cities when it comes to the of bermondsey in the end i'm switching gears to a certain degree your honor with regard to good faith and the automobile exception which we haven't even touched upon but it's clear that the governments in that for the search warrant they get approved they provided an abundance of additional information with regard to their concern for safety the fact that there might be firearms involved the fact that he's been seen recently with firearms and methamphetamine by a fifth confidential informant you know acknowledged they don't provide reliability information but they provide a track record information with regard that part of the warrant in particular they're laying out it's clearly kind of an ongoing document that's got some cutting and some pasting in different places but they have certainly i judged out dowdle in reviewing this application had to understand that the application makes it clear that they are looking for the chrysler trip three hundred three that they are looking for the contents of that vehicle the fact that the nineteenth september nineteenth information isn't in there is not is not fatal to this hotel the circumstances analysis looking at the entirety of the circumstances involved taking a step back away from just the probable cause of the differential probable cause substantial basis analysis that this court just like the district court the magistrate judge applies to these four search warrant there has good faith and it does go in your honor to your question on good faith goes to what was going on what those ages thought was happening day of event even a trial was born out to execute yes your honor i feel the government disagrees that or you look at it  find in the magistrate judge we're dealing with well respectfully i mean that would make no sense in that often we have affiance on behalf of agents out in the field who believe they're obtaining a valid search warrant and they in good faith go execute that search warrant and that's borne out by the testimony that happen in this case and they were waiting to try to get a warrant they were making arrangements he had different people stage all over the the state or at least generally around the metropolitan area tween here and accountable for what's in the application whether they've seen it or not this certainly rahner but this none of the applications involved in this matter were so for usually lacking in indonesia to consider it to have misled judge doubt all or for her to have made a mistake with regard to the issuance of the search warrant itself i think that's the crux of the matter and going back just to the point that was made with regard to the chrysler the three hundred where the methamphetamine was found we have yet to touch upon the automobile exception and the trial in your honour's are entitled to look at entirely the entirety of the record with regard to the automobile exception and it's clear that the officers had more than sufficient probable cause to believe that there would be a methamphetamine in that car or at least evidence tied to mr patrick so i think that i mean distribution ongoing surveillance of the three separate vehicles you had three separate trips from duluth to the twin cities in basically eleven and a half days using three separate vehicles they watch him as he goes down in the metropolitan area here he stops at multiple car parts stores and yes innocent facts are not necessarily probable probable cause were they but in this instance they corroborated their beliefs that are that he was meeting people they saw him multiple times stopping and going bre is hood it was clear the officers thought that they well they had to look under the hood of whatever vehicles he was driving in the vehicle in question on the twentieth by the time they got to him w the chrysler three hundred those facts all the facts combined the fact that they watched him overnight special investigator rebecca kopp that evening for eight hours sat about twenty five thirty yards away from h conducting surveillance while mr patrick was underneath the hood likely working out of this car on his car in part but also making sure we believe he was paranoid at the time making sure that he was close to that methamphetamine before he went back up to the twin cities the trip before that just six days before that mr patrick had taken less than six hours coming down to the twin cities spending some time down here and tripping back and again  described those trips back were through rural areas and the trips up to the two thousand points he had multiple stops at different locations that were suspected to be tied to his drug distribution customers locations that were subsequently searched pursuant to warrants that were garnered the day after the stop itself so in the end looking at the totality the circumstances the automobile exception would apply to the search of the two thousand and five search drugs and if later testified to a trial what they were doing was put in a stereo system but if you just look at what these surveillance officers said that they didn't have any basis to believe he had gotten drugs and they didn't see him anywhere else there's no testimony at the motion hearing that earlier in the day when he was in the twin cities area he had picked up any drugs they couldn't be sure of that at all so almost your other questions that's all i have thank you thank you