i assume that every generation believes that the issues of rights are always something that we are fighting issues for the right to a jury trial rights against the reason on reasonable search and seizures tell me what the difference is in the motion to suppress statements the police officers testified the initial statements of the defendant told that he found the cocaine and that they didn't believe that they told him to tell the truth that was it that was the only time they gave any testimony prior to trial at trial they testified specifically that my client a better chance in the air or someone in rougher he got a phone call the uncle gave him drugs told him to sell them that he was going to sell them to support detectives testimony at the first hearing based on it saying the only unusual thing was that he found it that was new evidence it was only brought for the first time a trial that was never turned over to us which we would say is clear brady violation because we could have used it  for but they testified in anticipation of trial that those motions exactly and you knew from the police report that there was the statement did example give it to them to sell  so it's the place and from you receive the drugs well it's that it was completely contradictory base and the first thing was completely different that's why they didn't put it in the records and that's what the reports also they said the first statement was that he found it and that was all they remember because it was is only a conservative the piece that is an officer while he's an duty if peaceful off duty he doesn't have any legal story began the end of a private citizen exactly so anybody private citizen is a bit easier protected but you're saying he should've gotten rid of his guy and your client according to the testimony was good evening officer davis make the assumption but he never said until you got on the phone with somebody else that he tell which is where children would say but that's not appropriate for someone who's actually entered as a police officer at least part of the time professionally with all due respect to mr haynes he might be a police officer wannabe but  this particular occasion for not doing any police authority work that day i still can't see how he is using authority of a police officer that night and they were talking about what was missing from the discovery never said where's this world statement still the burden was on us to produce it however when we finally get to the motions to suppress statements which were held a diva who really was their point say really there was an oral statement i want to superior we are just the rest of the oral statement incumbent upon the prosecutor to question their witnesses before putting them on the stand to make a determination during put in our discovery we said there was an oral statement was it here on our part that they had statement i found the cocaine was not summarized and given to them ahead of time yes it was  happen here but prior to the trial it wasn't fair disclosed to the defendants is that stand big that information came out they couldn't follow they didn't say you're saying where is the prejudice to undermine the trial is there basically with thank you for that  left things mid summer camp and they're pulled there and he doesn't recognise the car it's never happened before someone driving down the street who is having a heart attack and his parked the car and his wife in their car does anybody not have the right to single he had the right to search the search was not does not hold back on the state under the state's aegis because they never told him to do that if he was if you're going to say he was an agent of the state then he had probable cause to cocaine because it was in the pockets of blood and didn't didn't find the cocaine that was in the packets of the car and here we found the one that happened to roll out and so do you think that where there is somebody who's in there every day were gone everything without she was told that you know that certain evidence at that point where she had some indications that point that there might be evidence of a continuing crime the o c thing she had was a twelve pack of beer sitting on the roof that was completely testified that everyone else had it three times and it was eleven so if all the police officers is pacifically this point their job to count this isn't one of the minute things that they're supposed to be counting the bags is really important and he can't make you can't count on the evidence because if they say there something's missing missing one thing might seem like a very small issue with regards to weight but of missing wheel on your car missing one can be very significant in this in this case the quantity dictates that something happens to this evidence and based on that there is no showing that it's the same evidence and if it's