this that wheel or was storing guns in his home where in the record police find that argument for that would be in the district court's statement is where it was we'd objected to that in the court did not overrule that objections so well here's what i'm a little confused about and the district court you know argued that the whole statement was hearsay correct timid and so on that basis that was the district court didn't that that leaves it as if as a the informant that's the i mean that that's the i don't think we said that he didn't exist i think we said that that there was a question as to whether he had made had made the statements to the officer that that are regarding mr wheeler and so with that dispute what happened is it looks like the district court maybe had made a mistake maybe they meant to overrule paragraph three but they didn't which then leaves the fact issue which would make this case that should go to the jury because the what issue do you think there is i was a little unclear on an open issue once they warrant was granted the issue for every other court is essentially did the judge who issued the warrant take leave of his senses we don't judge probable cause from scratch and that's the holding of the supreme court in illinois against gates and of this court in united states against mcintyre neither of which are brief mentions you simply assume that we decide probable cause from scratch and we don't so is there some other issue in this case i think the probable cause issue is not only affected the the search but also the arrest and to to be frank of the the bigger concern i have is with the detention because the with the detention are there any potential legal issues if the warrant found arrest made detention follows from the presence of the evidence what's is there anything that is challengeable in that sequence other than the validity of the war taken of the contraband and it's our view that that's whose responsibility was it for the fingerprints even if it makes a difference it's the state's responsibility because under brady versus maryland it doesn't matter whether they do it  you can't bring a lawsuit based on constitutional provisions that don't exist in case law that's never been decided the case law does say that that the state has a duty to provide extolled that story evidence that trial the brady right which of course is judge gilbert said was not involved in the district court the brady right is a trial right it is not a pretrial right it is not an investigation right it is a right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence at trial and it's a right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence in the possession of the police it's not a right to have them conduct a better investigation i mean that those are just statements  the gathering of such  that argument it is said that brady is limited to evidence in the possession of the police and that the time for disclosure is at trial we are not going to hold that the supreme court is wrong  inferior court it means we're bound by their decisions we don't just make things up on our own brady you don't have to create it you don't have to conduct a better investigation you know all of these things have been considered by quite a lot of judges and you're just asserting the opposite of what i think there's a question of what is the i mean what what process is so to defend it especially when there's a we're talking a year long detention if this were like a week long detention that we wouldn't be here but but the fact that i mean  little thing could've saved earlier in jail and i don't i mean i not seeing where the case law that i wouldn't call it creating evidence that taking the fingerprints is routine it's at the deposition that it wasn't done it but they thought it was unnecessary simply because of the other information they had from the informants absolutely wasn't necessary for fingerprint analysis so then  the basis of the probable cause and we're not talking about the word we're talking about the information that was conveyed to him so because that statement that paragraph that we objected to was not their objection was not overrule we would say that that that put a duty on the that the officers to or that that raises a dispute as to whether the officers you know could say they had enough based on that if there was a dispute that that that conversation  thank you good morning him at please the court will will rest on our brief except to clarify one point posing counsel has represented that the district court left hanging this hearsay issue that's irreconcilable with the record at amusing the authentic sites here at eight three to eight four as well as a six the district court quite clearly said both that hearsay may be considered in the basis of determining probable cause  relying on the only verse that gates among many others as this court knows and a six also it's just not hearsay in the first place it's not the truth of the matter asserted it's just for the effect it has on the officer who as we all know has basically has to rely on such statements in the course of the there is not us single issue of genuine genuine if you material fact here everything was either admitted or objected to purely on hearsay grounds that were rightly rejected by the district court or were not properly objected to in the manner required by rule by federal fifty six or a local rule that the six point one where you have to come forward with actual evidence creating a skew nothing like that happened here if there are no further questions we respectfully request it might be helpful to the court to just briefly read the paragraph that we say was not that the court did not overrule or objection no i don't think it's necessary to read begum from opinion