month before for this the facts here and he's still not pleased with the outcome of that investigation or the timeline that it took to get that that result in the socially the outcome was yes there was an improper treatment because ken is a member of a though it was considered as a motion for summary judgment of the st point being whether or not that attention was reasonable kept in this case in his reports he indicated that he had conveyed it is d believed that cronin has talked to him about it at the time the detention was going on so d there's two really distinct versions here i'm not sure which is accurate but but they cannot why so that question plays into was that attention reasonable from his st statement or or what are you offering up that is beyond just what what you're kind of speculating on to say that that's what was happening i believe there's evidence on the record to show that initially there were d computer searches done as a result of those computer searches that get he was left with the opinion that these were illegal substances and this was a misunderstanding he puts that into a police report the timeline is not perfect  s look like steroids they use a similar name so in of ours and illegal steroids they use peeve are they use far the use similar similar things that make it look like so you have to be kind of up on the supplement terms  order to understand that yes they refer to d you know beer and things like that but in the historical context might be considered illegal steroids and you have to pay attention to what's present in the industry now and and to your point if you haven't taken any steroids training in the last twenty years d like gaff it's pretty tough to get there in terms of keeping up on what is legal and illegal so i gotta get that but then you have these in the text case but the real reason we believe d is that the chief of police was directing that an air be cleared up in the original warrant with a different defendant's name and that blood and urine be added to the to the war and that is not which was in there originally whether it's blood or urine if you want to add the other and then the other dence will show if you look at the warrants that that name was corrected from one warrant to the  that the phone records were pulled from this conference room the testimony was that they had a four hour excuse me a four pm deadline to get to company care which is a clinic and that was the one who was identified allegedly in the original warrant there is a phone call th deadline because they were still sitting in the conference room at three hundred and fifteen dollars i be talked counsel and there's no way ringback that they're going to get we talked about it at the deposition it's a good two miles over to company care so they're not going to make company care when he is still sitting there makes that and that that complaint was then forward on to the lake police department to the police to the assistant chief to say that there was these allegations that cronin were involved  added stay illegal steroids investigation and that possibly cronin was involved in the purchase of illegal steroids and distribution to legal steroids to another member of the link police are at so when these complaints were received by attacks between the individual being investigated but also between there's probably about fifty some tax about just purged meaning to purchase of illegal or purchase of substances that could be based on the phrasing in those tax legal substances illegal steroids and then there is also some additional documentation that's provided to the lincoln police department about this possible on lawful behavior by  of the narcotics unit but he he was not the one who was questioning there were several different sergeants from the narcotics unit who were involved in that detention of crime and and asked why isn't there why isn't there a genuine issue of a question in for an hour and then they got to the search warrants and then they took him to hospital for some blood and urine testing there are several things that occur after cronin was taken to a conference room at the substation volunteer information to the sergeant kept about you know hey i don't know that this complaint has happened because he was actually informed two weeks prior by assistant chief jackson that th  after that you know how long that takes then at that point in time kept he asked him some questions then he offers to conduct some internet searches to try and show that the substances might be illegal substances there computer in the conference room and so both kept crying and are kind of engaged in this internet search of trying to turn whether or not these substances are illegal and and then i think there is some confusion about whether the question actually was for forty five minutes to an hour the way i read the affidavit and kept here is there is this voluntary information offered by krone and he leaves and kind of tells the captain peterson about it comes back in give the urine sample on he wanted to talk to his attorney about that well regardless of how much time actually that's on concept whether or not it was one minute three minutes five minutes fifteen minutes whether it was a call that occurred that was forwarded there or was some time that was taken to have that conversation with his attorney and that ultimately ended up resulting and them not being able to take credit company care because a new warrant to be issued and also i also dealing with the physical characteristics search warrant to get that blood and urine sample me and there are that those four hours but there are so many things that happened within that four hours it's not just they're questioning them for who are not being diligent i'd like to ask you  and as i see that those are just really those are actual applications for a new search warrant and i write because i have that applications as i were praying everything that i've said before and now here is why i want some more time and reserve it seems like it's a new search warrant is because i don't see anything in the statute that says if you want more time file this type of document so can you help me understand updating it updating those extensions with any additional information i think i don't know that those those extensions are in the record themselves but i don't think it even if you know there there was some some duty or to update with whatever additional information and not just saying here's why we need additional time i don't think that this is clearly established clearly constitutional violation that that information is as close there's no there's no case law out there that says that you know you need to be providing this type of information and for these extensions rather it's based on the specific information and submitted to the core and ultimately the work in reviewing this determine there was probable cause and proved that the search warrants so you know whatever semantics there are about believe it's what's fundamental invalidate the probable cause in the search warrant the search warrants were still valid they still have probable cause and they were properly approved by the cor all the other issue with regard to the search warrant is whether or not he listed his training or peterson listed the training that happened steroids maybe even if he had said i've only had four or five hours in the last these these kind of issues that cronin's racing and you know about you know what's not included in the search warrant whether or not there is adequate time or whether or not there at all leaves we're  taking too much time in order to get the search warrants but all of these do not create genuine issues or jamie disputes and material fact that the search warrants were valid and the i have one question before you before you get started on this issue of challenging the extensions of six the search warrant for that the cell phone and did was that raised at the district court i think it seems that you raised th at the initial october st search warrant against you you challenged that but did you raise the issue of the extensions to the district or i believe that we did and i believe that it was it is clearly established i do not recall right off the top of my i think that you're representing that you did raise this issue to the district part that is my belief is that we did raise that issue and the failure to include the updated information to the extent that opposing counsel says that most frequently by your client two points about your honor no one had the automobile exception in mind at the time that that was in doubt and they did believe d this early that they had independent probable cause but also there is nothing in the act thank you both that we appreciate your arguments and we appreciate your willingness to appear by any of we will take the matter