suppression issues in this case and i think it's the st time i've ever done that i'd like to address before this court st the issue with regards to consent for the storage look at that storage locker and why doesn't it matter what why did the district court based on or the magistrate judge based on the terms of the lease also found yes your honor so with regards to actual authority and the fact that she is listed on the lease for the storage unit that does not actually mean that she has actual authority to allow the search of the premises and the reason i say that is is twofold number one any number of people can be listed on that lease by either by the defendant in this case whether or not they have any relation to the defendant or not but more than that in order to have authority actual authority you actually have to have you know the ability to have cussed we are in control over the premises in this case she never  did you know that the the evidence in this case is pretty clear that not only did she not know where the storage unit was even located but that she couldn't even provide the name to the storage unit and she didn't have a actually thore doesn't depend on whether you have a legal right it's a must it depends on whether practical you've actually been go into the locker and using it absolutely because you know you can  scenario where you know you have a wife and a husband that are going through a divorce and so the wife is still on the let's say the wife is still on the title to the house but you know there's all this things that have happened the locks have been changed you know she's been removed like let's say you know a restraining order something like that the fact that her name happens to still be on the planet all doesn't mean that she has actual  consent and then in keep in mind this is her providing consent in this case not just simply laurie and we've made our secondary argument which is that any consent that was provided that night certainly wasn't a voluntary act on her part but you would agree with that one though it would be a clearer standard of review i think our case law was a bit inconsistent on this but i think most of the cases nowadays it suggests that the automobile crews and about what consent was voluntary is a fact question are we review under attack for instance i do agree that that is the case yes or yes but with regards to i think it's pretty straightforward in terms of a parent authority there was no parent authority here she didn't have a key she didn't she didn't know where it was and and the government preacher is this is is some kind of a credibility determination and as we point out in our  rely solely on the information that was provided by the testify officers in this case and when this issue i don't need to rely on crystal florence's testimony at all so this is not a credibility issue at all if you take a look her and then you have the agent the federal agent agent evans who also is very consistent in did this florist tell you that ship permission or authority his response as well she had been there and she had stuff there and she signed the consent and then you have the actual the actual written report by the officers which by the way this is contrary to some of their their testimony that they provided and dropped but the but the written report authority at the time and they should not have allowed her to sign the consent but more than that the facts of the case it being two thirty in the morning her nine people coming in the door gunpoint her being partially unclothed her having he young a young kid there with her all of those facts lead to the fact that this was not a knowing and voluntary decision on her part signed that paper and that kind of leads me to t and what is the guidance on this is or guidance on this question of someone who has actual may have actual what's already or may have signed a document that looks like it and then that you look behind that to other circumstances to decide whether that that whether you should should ignore or minimize the effect of that that what that looks like wheedle authority so i do i actually did center the affidavits in support of the search warrants were identical virtually identical in something the the off spears believe that the same evidence supports probable cause for both of them there is simply a drug dealer but believing someone to be a drug dealer or leaving someone to have committed a crime and knowing where they lived does not give the government the authority to search a house and ask you about that because i think yes you know i think maybe it maybe you could reconcile our cases better than i can but i think i seem to have found categorical quotes pointing in opposite directions on this issue in a case called williams  talked about how the recent line of cases we have how that it that an issue and judge may infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug trafficking i took williams to be saying the fact that they are drug trafficker is sufficient for the nexus requirement but then we had a case called brown where we said we have never held that a suspect status as a drug dealer standing the load d gives rise to a fair probability that drugs would be found in his home and it's not clear to me it's not clear to me that that the city sentences are consistent i wonder what's your best approach for reconciling  law on this question about whether a drug dealer status as enough as i see case is going to point in both directions judge murphy i do agree that there there is some conflict there but as with most cases you need to look be to the facts of the particular case which shows why the judge makes or why the court makes in a vacuum a statement such as that and i'll give you a great example and that is the case that the government cited in its rule twenty eight j letter that file i believe a day or two ago which is the crawford case because the government makes that argument that hey drug dealers if it's a drug dealer they know we know that they used that they put drugs in their home and therefore you can go in and get a search warrant for their home but encroach property actually doesn't say that what what crawford does it makes kind of a quote along those lines but then goes on to say well in this case there was enough because there was a control by with an undercover officer or another going to her person and they the officer saw the defendant leave his home with a bag and then that bag was found to contain the drugs so we know that there were drugs that were located in the home because of the bag that we saw him leave with and that's how we get to probable cause in that case and i think the other thing is that some of the cases that make kind of those quotes are sometimes talking about that in the context of good faith exception and not probable cause itself so in other words the case that the district court relied on implore that proposition and that in the court used it that lower court used it as a probable cause but actually mccoy isn't a probable cause case it's whether or not the good faith see it's the otherwise invalid as or doesn't does that help you here though because the government has ra that faith at least in a sense a member is well i would i would completely disagree that they've raised it in any fashion that would allow this court to review i think i've cited two different cases in my reply brief that says that if you raise an issue in a perfunctory fashion you don't get to raise it i would also point out that if you take a look at that district court pleadings the government never relies on good faith at the district court level either so they don't rely on the edge to destroy court level they raise it in literally one sentence at the end of this argument this court has consistently said that when you do that you don't get the benefit of this court's review and so we would say that good faith isn't even on the table for purposes sometimes we affirm on grounds that aren't even rights and that's a different standard that's true but in this case the haven't even even if we would get to some sort of a good faith analysis there's just said this is so  probable cause this particular search warrant that no reasonable officer could rely on it there is simply other than the fact that one has elisa and i ask you i mean i i i am struggling with this one and i don't  know that i think it was the begins case where they were looked like it was just a single drug transaction and maybe a prior conviction was enough here we've got i don't know what we do with the mexico deal that ended up following through but it suggests that your client was going to be involved in a very large amount of drugs he's a known trafficker i think he has a prior conviction they got a phone we why isn't that what's perhaps it was about how how how big of a drug dealer the person was so the more likely it was that it was a large drug traffic terror involved in many so big time i think brown the brown case from two thousand and sixteen drops a footnote suggesting that's what you would you agree at least that if the drug trafficker is you know some sort of the higher level large transactions that that might might be enough just based to that satisfy this nexus requirement when the drug traffickers like that of that's the situation you're you're on are now actually respect we disagree with that because what the money and the drugs in it's in that spirits to reason that if the person using a stash knows that means they're not using their personal home because they're smart enough to know that they should put that in their personal hope so that that evidence at the terrace creek location and then based upon that officers surveilled that location and saw a car down to be mr shekels car at that location they didn't observe him come out of there with a duffel bag or nobody went in there to make a controlled by i mean it's his house i mean let's everybody can acknowledge that it's his house and his car might case law how would you respond to the statement arse article said we have never held a suspect status as a drug dealer are standing alone gives rise to a fair probability of the drugs found in this home be this is own plus something so i don't i don't see how it helps to say well we pinned him there and that means he's been there he lives there we all agree let's there are questions whether there's anything beyond if the quote from judge murphy is basketball and have your cell phone in your pocket he did that at home how is that not one hundred percent consistent with the three items which indicate that in fact was is  more than just evidence it was this all and you use it in my perception but i'm asking to be corrected my perception is that each of the things you cite to show that it was more than his home merely shows that it was this whole it home is being used for drug deals you're on and so what did you have was there then probable cause to search any place that the phone hearing testimony i think it was by officer holding said that the ping order was obtained on july  the following day july th pink terrace creek apartments and then it was a couple of days later that the united states learned or the da learned that the ten cocaine deal was off but only because the little dealer had spent his money on other drugs and then somewhere in the interim and it's unclear the chronology  don't recall that fact you may be correct that i don't recall it that way i just found paying warrant read in its entirety clearly was meant to go on for an ongoing investigation the the ping order was set to go in place for six or sixty days indicating that it was turn ongoing investigation not only the ten kilogram cocaine deal but also ongoing  drug violations by either mr nader as it turned out to be mr shackles or other individuals and so it didn't just automatically terminate when that ten kilogram cocaine deal went just finding where that phone is located may not be on the phone when the phone things that's my understanding as well you're right so if he uses this phone all the time for drug deals and then the phone is paying  coordinate location it's there's no suggestion that that particular time the phone is being used for a drug deal that's correct is not that's my understanding of it and you know if he took his phone into his grandmother's house to wish or happy birthday stayed half an hour and left his car would be there and the king would be there but there wouldn't be any lot and maybe the reason for the pink warrant had to do with the fact that he insisted at times or maybe  lots of times four for  good reason to think that there was a scare probability that the ping warrant would lead to evidence of a crime which in fact and the other question i have is is there a reason why you gave such structure to leon in your breed's well your honor we had was discussed earlier in the breach regarding the good state the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and then there was a lot of detail given in the united states as to the content the rich content the warrants and so to have it seems obvious that the officers relied on the issuing judge's probable cause determination as they were executing those warrants and so it seemed redundant to have said more than was citing leon and without going into  saying you didn't are you this is because the arguments are virtually the same airlifts it's just stronger version of those with the leon argument your honor says that the officers did relying good say on the issue of judges probable cause determination and so it seems to me your honor that the united states three did say that sufficiently citing leon talking about the  detailing the information that was put in the affidavit supporting the warrants what about in the court below to raise leon in the district court yes your honor i'm glad you asked in fact that was raised  k there was probable cause for all of these warrants and in the alternative the officers did rely a good stay on the issuing judge's probable cause determination which is to said that on july th it pinged terrorist creek that is the only information that we have is the one ping on july th after after the tracking warrant was issued that's the only evidence that we have but more than that the tracking warrant doesn't go nearly as far as the government argues there is not this long evidence of the phone being used on multiple occasions for drug deals or even discussion of drug deals so st the court should be aware that the tracking warrant says that the phone didn't even come into existence itself may th of two thousand and seventeen so all of the pages of  evidence of the history of the rebus brothers had nothing to do with that tracking phone or with that particular phone because it wasn't even involved in the picture but more than that when the when the government or when the court when the when the officers got that tracking morant obviously my client wasn't even the target they thought that that the target telephone belonged to a mr maes and so the this lengthy discussion of what occurred back before two thousand and seventeen was all evidence of mr mays and his communications with three of us brothers might my client wasn't involved in any of that so this big historical four and twenty eight so at one point and they have the information on reverse he gets off the phone and after he gets off the phone at some point later talks with the undercover agent says hey i got this deal s and then they took a look at the at the target phone's records and say that was about the time he had that conversation with the undercover agent that's it that's the only evidence that that they have about the target phone being used they had access to the target phones so you are evidence of who called the new it didn't call if you take a look through that affidavit it doesn't say that oh the target phone call reverse thirteen times or the target phone even if think there was a prob i do agree that once the officers are executing the warrant that the phone and phone and things like that are listed on there and they're going to seize them so i would agree with your but that doesn't mean that they never tried to tie the phone in that instance to cheer scree and i think what it is and what if and i don't isn't the phone tied to drug activity no i mean the whole idea is that's the phone they're calling to set up the the mexican deal that falls through or whatever right and so that phone is i mean it's suspected of being involved in drug activity it's located perhaps  already knew had dissipated at the time that they're going about furthering on these warrants right do you ever ok so the so we know the drug deals not going forward but also we know that whoever or they say or suspected that whoever it was that was going to distribute or buy those drugs found another source or found another supply so that person who has that phone is still involved in drug activity right i mean even though th the deal the deal falls through it's not because that person says i better change or part of not going to get involved in drugs anymore so it's i mean it's still relevant that there's still this drug activity going on right  i would agree number one that it's relevant your honor but that's the problem with this case is this propensity it's just basically the propensity well we know the drug deal fell through but he's a drug dealer so he must be doing something else that's that's what that argument basically boils down to is we know he stole a drug dealer even though we don't know what he's doing let's go ahead and execute these anyway because we know he's a drug but they didn't have the evidence that he had any active activity at that