during that entire process inquired of the agent what the process would be and was an interested individual in the process the f b i agent then indicated to the aunt that it probably would be necessary for her to leave so if you did depart the young man was polygraphed in several sessions was in the room for some four hours with the f b i agent and eventually delivered a written confession we move to suppress that confession the individual of the juvenile and subsequently the juvenile was sentenced in a juvenile disposition hearing we're here today to ask the court to visit the issue of suppressi of the confession and to rule it inadmissible for several reasons chief among them being that he and did not understand fully what the polygraph process would be it was her categorical assertion at that hearing that she understood that the questions that were going to be put to this youngster were going to be going over with him on the front end of the pie process honor and i think that's probably the crux of the argument here i'd like to address the first concerns first though what constitutional provision were relying on i did fold into these papers on the front  the original motion to suppress an argument that we were dealing with of sorts of fourth amendment claim here and i developed that further in the context of the briefing before this court tried to indicate that the administration a cases this consent must be fully developed and fully informed and there is no wise and in this explanation by this f b i agent that there's going to be cost interrogation questioning and i think it makes a tremendous difference respectfully your entire process to warrant taking that written confession and losing of this process and using it against this boy in the context of the trial it's just not fair you know the government made an argument below  before judge had been well you know we didn't need to do any of this we could have questioned him out of his hands presence on the front end we didn't have to involve her this was already just and gracious on our part well in reply we said the judge had and that's not fair you don't engage the family here and explain a process to them and say it's going to work in one type of fashion and then change the rules after the woman  she clearly was entitle to be there when the boy was questioned and would have given him a vice and i'm saying that had that aunt been there at the conclusion of that process to help them out in the ways that she there because the agency says that i think in his explanation in his original explanation that the protocol for third parties not to be in the room during the festi i'm going to explain the polygraph to this in this case your nephew and explain to him how that process moore's so that he understands what all the components are how each component operates as well as i'm going  so that that's regrettable but ultimately i think that if your honour's are not persuaded by the fact that this involves a fourth amendment issue nonetheless the government should be held to the higher standard because they initiated if they wanted the participation of being at the end should have been fully informed it's in no fair to say it's no fair to involve in a manner of speaking he couldn't get out of that room until was writing them and she could have been summoned at any time during that process she could have been summoned back to that room thank you thank you sir right