long i think the really the big issue in this case is the way overall this case was presented in and tried in the district court and i think when you review the record in this case it becomes very clear that mr crawford was not convicted or tried and convicted for the particular acts that he was charged with having done he was convicted for who he was and in part what i what he had done in the past but it's more a get to that i want to talk a little bit about the suppression motion issue when the search warrant in this case the search warrant for  that mr crawford was listed as the person who had purchased the residence i'm sorry purchased the address that mr crump that same information metro sca much it now in this circuit and i believe most of the circuits if not all of the circuits there is a special rule regarding searching the residence of the someone who's suspected of being a drug dealer and basically want you to establish that they are involved in drug dealing activities the law allows that search warrant to issue for the residents on the theory that drug dealers are likely to keep  residences but the problem here is there's really not enough evidence to establish as a matter of probability that this particular if you asked lots of back mr crocker's reference there was no information that he'd ever been residences how many potential residences are there and again what was mr wilson's basis for his belief that mr kopper lives somewhere in that area this is really a very fact based issue but in looking at other cases that have dealt with this generally there is something that the police officers have done this that was just a probability or a high likelihood that the person actually resides at the address to be searched and i don't believe we have that in this particular case as before coming over here i looked for some more recent cases to see if i could find think there are there are ways that police officers can establish the necessary facts to get a search warrant under these circumstances that are really fairly easy to do and i think should be required so that they're not going out and that it was occupied by anyone they never went to the house they didn't get information from any kind of published source that where mr crawford had listed this particular address as his residence so it was really there was some connection but i don't believe that there's enough of a connection to say that in this case it was probable more likely than not that he actually lived there and i think there's a significant problem with allowing officers to to go for clarified exactly that there are i'm not suggesting there is a percentage that you have to look here but there would have to be evidence from which i'm an ordinary person would look at and say i think it's likely that that's going to occur or that if i go there i'm going to find a particular thing if you go to the art of cracking down on a horse you don't like of course because it's possible that when you go back because you think it's more likely that he'll win and that it's probabl automatic sort of exception to that the specificity that usually required to show that evidence will be found in a particular place so we already have made a kind of exception here and i think it's important that we don't allow that exception to be expanded beyond what is really permissible under the fourth amendment statements by mr crawford that he had made to the police regarding his admitted drug dealing activities but those statements if you look at those statements record they did not include any of that he had put cash down on the car that he had a role like ross watch when he was arrested that he had furniture in his house that he had fancy electronic equipment  evil here is that as i said he was not really tried for this particular alleged deliberate what he was tried for was being a drug dealer or having been a drug dealer and if there's any question about whether or not that was really he basically tells the jury that even if they don't believe these transactions occurred as they were described by the c i that they can still convict him because he's obviously a drug dealer and here's what he says so even forgetting about mr wilson's testimony you could o even if you don't believe his testimony you can still convict him on the basis of all this other evidence now i'm not trying to be critical the prosecutor here what happens is when you let it be on the argument that he didn't write  really was and when you allow this evidence in even if the prosecutor doesn't say anything about it by allowing the the jury to hear it the district court invites them to reach these kind of conclusions on their own anyway even if nobody says they can because they're told they can review and consider all of the evidence and the car the rolex watch the pool table none of these things had anything whatsoever to do with these two alleged to their prisons that they believe their confidential he had all these expensive things that must have been the proper process of drug trade therefore you can convict him even if you don't believe the guy and that's improper we don't fry people on that basis in this country we try them on the basis of what they're charged with and the proof that they actually committed those particular actually you're charged with are none of those devils including mr well mr crawford statement to the police had any relevance to whether or not mr crawford was the person who had delivered the drugs to the c i on the stoop tickler cations had no relevance whatsoever to that issue only to this broader issue of he's a drug dealer he's done it before he must have done it this time and that's clearly propensity evidence and the other evidence taken from the house the the items and the furniture etc it was used in a sense like propensity evidence here because he was trying to his drug dealing activities but i think really that was more on and in there you'll see that the confidential informant told detective barr that mr crawford lived in the indian trails area of spokane and that's a neighborhood then based on detective barres personal knowledge of the area he was aware once he mashed up that address west fifty one swell to the civic park drive so mr crawford he was aware that that address was in that neighborhood the indian trails neighborhood of spokane the statements that mr crawford made to law enforcement on the day he was arrested about his i believe one of the statements was that he started selling interviewed by the agents admitted to them that he had a janitorial business and he made approximately thirty to thirty five thousand dollars a year and a person making evidence at trial that the residential neighborhood the mr crawford lived in believe this came out to the testimony of special agent with the drug enforcement administration show and cummings who testified that  the doors the front doors on mr crawford's residence were on like the doors on the other residence in the houses they were had double was a very heavy heavily constructed door  interviewed that the rolex was an imitation it was not a true rolex watch and then through further investigation one of the agents who testified he went to pounders jewellers a local jewelry store and showed the rolex watch to that jeweler and the jeweler indicated that it was not an imitation but it was the real thing so that evidence was also offered it was stablished a misstatement made to a law character i believe if i just took a look at the government's brief and i believe they have argued that this evidence about the vehicle about the pool table and these other items and  really material issues actuarial mr property and claim that he had given something to the c i they didn't know it was drugs he didn't claim that he had done the act charge but didn't intend to do them or that he  done something he didn't testify at all he simply this defense was simply the proof isn't good enough the cia is not credible he had contact with other people during both of these controlled by and there's questions about material issues of trial and that's not a basis for bringing in this kind of evidence then and i think the case the very clear on that if you can't just say well it is an element we can bring in four hundred three b evidence even if it's not really a question that the