be considered on the brief and then i would specifically argue the g p s tracking device issue judge edmund discovery this standing the issue is interesting the entire investigation was called the luna santiago us conspiracy from the beginning the government alleged that the entire conspiracy was run and controlled by mr luna son t n s am i right to distill this down to the sense of your argument that we would have to agree that being the the the leader of a drug enterprise means then you are in control of and therefore have a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the vehicles used by various members of the conspiracy yes that's it yes any thirty for that no your honor and the reason i don't have any authority on that is that this that particular issue has never been ultimately decided the  allegation of the government in every case that i've seen and participated in is that the vehicles are never in the name of the person who is controlling the conspiracy there's attest that even though it wasn't his name he had control of it didn't he or it was he is or something like that he did do that no your honor the reason he didn't do that is that nobody is going to admit told control of the cars i had control because i had them put in other people's names the government never brought in any of the owners of the vehicles to indicate whether  enact how they got the vehicles in their name or you want to find that somebody to find that he had control of these vehicles without him ever having to say that he had control of the vehicles because the only evidence as i understand it is the c i that the confidential informant forms a conclusion in his mind about who controlled this enterprise and therefore the cars tells that to the double or triple hearsay i would think it would be just single hearsay ok single here saying bubbles enough i guess so what's the exception to the hearsay rule that would that would then upon which you can then use does the question seem to be that's about as been a read as you can possibly offer us in connection with even the underlying factual predicate that he is in control he doesn't say and control he doesn't even  the government's allegation is that the entire conspiracy was under the control leadership of mr luna some pianists the c i gave information to is to determine who's going to drive them when where and under what circumstances you don't have to have them in your name in order to still do still utilize the  concept of reasonable expectation of privacy which is always accompanied by the phrase that society would would recognize as reasonable that's the law sure so really you're saying that society would recognize as reasonable the concept that the kingpin in a drug conspiracy has a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the cars that are used by all of the coconspirators that it i believe that if you poll quote members of society and give them that particular scenario and that the kingpin has total control of the vehicles and nobody uses the vehicles to commit any further it's of the conspiracy without their persons permission society would agree that the kingpin has control and that the underlings are only subject to the kingpins directives are and did you bring that out at the hearing i did argue that mr loomis on tiana's had control of the vehicles and therefore he had standing i wasn't given the hypothetical that judge mckee gave me as far as whether that's a side would recognize it but i believe that if society would recognize it and do you do you have a do you have a case no your honor actually it is a case that comes out exactly the opposite way as in the us vs padilla but this case they reject the court of appeals determination that a coconspirator or who had demonstrated joint control and supervision over the drugs in the vehicle had standing to contest the search of a vehicle they did not own but there's a joint control there's nothing in this particular case that indicates that any of the the three or four people that were using the vehicles had joint control for purposes of control just really ends up saying more than one person is standing is not what white why is that properly distinguishable because it was joint control and one in your argument here is single control in this case  single control means that as a kingpin nobody uses the vehicles in furtherance of the conspiracy without permission from the person who enters a stand simply ownership through straw owners and therefore control under the state of the purposes let's assume that you're right about this whole issue  government response that they would have they knew where these cars were and they knew where the drugs were and they would have stopped them anyway because they were also tracking this through cell phones they didn't know where the cars were under they knew where it is telephones were  does not mean that anyone that had to telephone was in fact in any of the vehicles that settled by the c i that these folks were going into cars to chicago buying drugs and coming back to detroit in these two cars but they didn't find all foreigners in one of these cars they didn't follow the cars they didn't know deep to see i never indicated that anyone that was going to chicago back and locational device they were using pursuant to a warning as i understand it with the phones because there was no evidence that there were no testimony that anyone that was making these trips back and forth one is going to be utilizing the phone that was in fact that they had a word for death their phone could have been used by someone maybe within the conspiracy they had nothing to do with the car it may have been that or the trailer so why is that not inevitable that cover the costs assuming they didn't have to tracking device they wouldn't have known exactly where both cars were the red aviator it was just happenstance that they knew that the red aviator that they had the illegal tracking device for don was going to be in a certain place the transfer the trip from detroit to chicago and back is over three hundred miles there's no way in the world that but just that particular ready vader no burgundy aviator no colored that looked like it was red the judge here found that the officers had an independent source for the location data and that was the fault and that is factually incorrect incorrect or legally incorrect or why i'm just not understanding your argument as to why the so it was in another car and we don't know where their car was in relation to read either so if they knew that there was a second car third car that was on the road the phone that the communication from that phone to anyone that was in the they weren't using the communication between cell phones and two cars to track the location of the phone the what i'm saying is there was no testimony that they had any connection the court even cares on behalf of the united states there are many complicated issues left to resolve after the supreme court decided jones it's the government's position this case isn't one of them for the reasons that the panel was asking mr feinberg about sentience isn't a person who has standing to object to the tracking in this case as judge pointed out he could have proffered or provided some evidence that he had some legitimate control or ownership of the lincoln aviator he did not do that in fact this was the exact scenario that happened in many cases including when the supreme court decided rockets versus illinois and footnote one of that opinion excuse me the court noted that because the defendant did not provide any testimony or any evidence and it's his burden to prove that he has standing there will soon that he doesn't have it  opinion rejected that so that reason is not sufficient to give this defendant standing in addition even if santana's did have standing the the exclusionary rule one applied because the heroin would have been obtained the as the panel was indicating there were three things that were being tracked on the evening of august fourteenth two vehicles and the phone the six to one nine phone that there was a warrant for  was no connection between that six to one nine phone and the defendant's that's incorrect in fact in early march of two thousand and eleven the confidential source or c i said that the person known to see more o actually identified as defendant to jimenez was using both the six to one nine phone and the red aviator for drug trafficking purposes then after that information later on in march there was a controlled delivery or samples set up again using the same informant with the call calling the six to one nine phone speaking to both jimenez and santana's to arrange for the delivery of a sample of heroin to an undercover officer so there was the connection between the six to one nine phone and the defendants yes if the six to one nine phone didn't necessarily go to chicago then the inevitable discovery argument might lose some of its legs but in addition to that fact the government points out that officer m testified that they knew which vehicle they were looking at the informant the foreman told them that it the drugs would be this red lincoln aviator that they knew the license plate that they were looking for officer murray also testified that there were multiple surveillance officers out in fact he testified that there are eight different surveillance officers out and this is the thing that agents do all the time they have a general idea as to when the vehicle or vehicles that they're looking for is going to be on a particular road or thoroughfare and they look for the vehicle and they pull up behind a vehicle to see if it's the right vehicle and make a traffic stop that would have occurred and in this case and for those reasons the government believes that the the in the other car to the red with that with the cars travelling along together or do we know their confidential source before they left the confidential source told the the answer to your question just m yes we do know the reason is because that both cars were being tracked so this they show that they both did go in close proximity second the confidential source before the tracking occurred said that these individuals would be taking two cars they would be taking this particular trail blazer and the aviator so they did know and the as i was trying to articulate the phone is connected to this group this caravan of cars going to chicago because it's connected to the defendants they were they monitoring the location of the car using the locating device in the phone as it is the caravan is going east officer murray testified that yes they monitored he looked at all three things the bowl the tracking devices on both vehicles as well as the phone so without the tracking device he made out of known exactly where the vehicle with the drugs was located at any given moment but he knew the general area for the surveillance officers is that basically the  that's correct that that was both the testimony and the government's position even he knew around the timing of when the car would be in the location because he knew that it was going with the the cars were going together and the phone of your acid to the officers that saw the ready be it or that pulled over rely upon one of these devices at the time or were they just placed by somebody else in the area and then they saw the car vehicle at first they were in radio communication and i don't know that he could that officer murray could parse out which specific thing he was relying on in that instance the our position is that it doesn't testified there was limited traffic that they would have found and stopped that that aviator so we're going to last the panel has any questions looks like not thank you thank you just run i'm going to save the rest of the time