basis they're issued property by the jail or prison authority to use while they're there so the problem with this is we're  still the state where mr barrett or any pretrial detainee has not been convicted we don't know from the basis of this record what the circumstances were of them getting that to the pressure of raising the test of the tooth brush that we know of but we don't know what the circumstances were we don't know whether they could take that toothbrush two hours after the guy had probably used it and heaven forbid maybe dumped it in the toilet maybe it was tainted by something else that's a different issue as to the what information it would believe as opposed to who who found his post conviction petition in it two years eleven months and thirty days we don't know what correspondence or communications went on between mr barrett and his attorney we don't know whether or not there was something where you know staple you get in for thirty days and you're pretty much then there were other questions what is there about this tooth brush that would make it his property as a pretrial detainee why would it matter then then he has it and simply trailed detain the institution possibly don't we don't know those answers either those are also things that we need to be flushed out and remember we don't have the information at this point but a virtue of the guilty plea we don't have the information to answer any it's not in the record we can't refer to it and we don't have those answers there are questions that must be asked at a different stage of proceedings and that's what it boils down to we just don't have the answers and it and it never got i think it would issue that ultimately would it matter in the court said there was still probable cause to get a warrant for his d n a even without that pressure coming back so you're looking at the first prong and looking at whether or not this was strategy on  counts multiple years of prison it's hard to say that preserving this one really interesting issue would have made any difference the court said over and over again that it wouldn't have made any difference in this case  that's only part of it and because even if he had argued this motion to suppress it wouldn't have made any difference in this case he could win the motion to suppress and he's still facing mountains of  we still have that he places himself in the apartment we still have that his quote where he says he probably didn't do this when he popped up his life we still have his shoe print matching the shoe print on the door we still suppress issue which would have made any difference ultimately in this case it's hard to fault counsel from are at that point working out a really good deal on one co if there's no one well what about the privacy issue with respect to the toothbrush was that his toothbrush and that he was given in the jail and it but even if we said he could arguably have a basis our position is that he doesn't but even if he did it doesn't matter in this case there was still enough to get a warrant for his d n a we still united states supreme court and federal courts that it belongs to the g a o you give it back to them when you leave and they were probably us if we had we can talk about it now but there's just nothing even though it's kind of a punishing all around the tooth brush is a great issue but it doesn't make a difference in this case  so there's a lot to still live it in these motions to suppress and whether or not counsel's advice was wrong is clear from the case law he i was not going to be able to further have to read how it was you all these issues call all of it came from the anonymous telephone call what's the liability of the anonymous telephone call we don't know who did the investigators follow up with some of this and  were running into the apartment or whatever and knocked on the door of this but there's all sorts of other reasons for a footprint being there we don't know and there's also there's in the record there's that from the prosecutor that talks history of making these claims whether she's going to her credibility can be attacked on that basis that's something that could be decided at trial but it all goes to all these questions that we just can't answer at this point we have to be able to send it back and it