school i didn't think i would get this opportunity this soon so pleased to be here welcome i will argue for issues and i will argue the court must grant mr s appeal and remand the case back to the district court level with the exclusion of certain evidence and the issues presented your honour's are one that mr stein is consent to search his house was given i voluntarily number two that even if this court found that mr steinmetz did give voluntary consent that consent was limited and predicated on his being present at the search number three i will address that the admission of certain evidence under rule four zero four b and four fourteen was extremely outweighed by its prejudicial effect and for the old discussed the restrictions on the cross examination of the complaining witness f am and i intend on spending the majority of the time on the first two issues in regards to the issue of the voluntariness of the present an individual whose will was over born or his self determination critically impaired and the consent is involuntary and courts look at a variety of factors such as whether the whether the individual objected or passively looked upon the search and whether they were force or threats involved in the brief i cited united states versus thompson which quotes the fifth eleventh circuit wherein the courts found that blocking an individual's path or restraining his movements is of great significance here will what we have is we have mr steinitz who was informed of the accusations weeks prior to him being apprehended by officers and on the day of the interrogation we have mr stanwood somebody who has no experience with interrogations and very limited experience and  who is elderly approached by officers at his place of employment by two armed uniformed officers and of significance  i mediately after the officers note that he is a suspect and in and of an accusation he asked to retrieve a personal belonging and the one officer involved restrained his movement and made sure that he he couldn't go away and i think that is that that's definitely of significance and that at the outset upon meeting these officers he's immediately restrained and patted down then he goes down to the maryland heights police station and during the eight hour interrogation that ensued which occurred in a seventy square foot room it was a windowless and locked honor and on that note i think it goes to the fact that mr simonds from from the outset being patted down and being restrained being approached by officers known of the accusations didn't who once again is methodist place of work and any reasonable person who may be around colleagues and is approached by two armed officers what i obviously want to remove himself from that situation when surrounded when  in the presence of or possible presence of colleagues and to reiterate he is then immediately restrained and his movement is limited he's taken to the station he's in this locker room and at the very beginning of the interrogation based on the testimony of the suppression of the suppression hearing he asked the tech at house well i'd be released to which she replies it's not it's not arguments about whether the search exceeded the scope of the consent and i understand you want to say there's no consent at all i think that's the point you're making now that you think there was no valid concern at all because of the circumstance even if you found that the consent was voluntary it doesn't change the fact that the consent was in fact limited and your honors the the overarching rule of law is noted in jimeno where the court found that up stairs authority is dictated by the expressed or implicit consent that is given and in human know there was a traffic stop so how do you say it was exceeded here judge it was exceeded because at the at the outset when he was asked to consent and in the same breath of him signing the first consent form he tells detective house well i'd like to be there if i could right ok mount the judge says well they told  after numerous times saying i would like i would like to be president he's told by sergeant white that you'll diskette in the way but mr steinmetz i'm here to tell you that the search will be minimal would supervise the search he then the officer sergeant white then tells mr steinmetz oh and the search has been completed ok so was the consent contingent on white conducting it or being present the argument judge is that based on the law that the office authorities dictated by either the express or implied consent that's given number one that the the ok so it was clear that she understood that and she testified at the suppression hearing that although she acknowledged that she actually had no intention of him being present second of all when you go to the interchange between mr science and sergeant white what we have is he's finally say we're not going to be there but i'm going to be the one supervising the search and is in the room with them and lee's briefings as well search is over so number one the officers and any reasonable officer would have known that the consent of the implied consent was predicated on his presence and number two how can mr steinitz object when he's told the terms of the search and who would be supervising it while the search is already being conducted and is finished with the same officer who said he would be supervising it is still in the room with him and judge this this case is very similar to sanders which is started in the brief in sanders we had a pat down search and the officer said you know we want to pat down sanders in that case raises arms they had it over by no problem and then when they got to his pockets he started swiping the officers hand away and the courts found that that was implication and a reasonable implication that he objected to the search of his pockets which is very similar to this situation where mr simon said multiple times ah consent but i'd like to be that if he gives consent and says i'm going to give full consent then the law says he needs to make an unequivocal statement limits as well however judge he never he didn't give full consent at the outset the consent that was given was our consent but i really want to be there which is like sanders she said ya consent and the court said that the initial consent given was that he objected to twelve fourteen the detective houses the only detective who isn't the most room with the defendants start saying hey i was one of the things we like to do is a search or your residence we like to go into your residence we like look at your computers and we like to find these images of of our of the victim if we could and they like to look at other devices and she goes through precisely what it is that she's looking to do in this case and what the consent might be might be a document this executed in the south of the water or a shot of them or the warm water so that might inform the correct interpretation of the line the scope there's no unequivocal assertion saying that you can only do the search if i'm president that's not what happens and you could if you go through you could tell by the course of conduct and i guess the quick question is  afterwards and what follows afterwards is that the defendant's goes goes through this coarseness interview he's told a multiple occasions that they're looking for to get together people to go conduct a search he doesn't say hey you know i need to be there at that point he finds out about three by three twenty eight or so in the afternoon saying that he is not going to be there and detective white goes in the room again he's the only person in there it gives a a form and this is white during that time he says he says if the searches is going on and he says so i'm not going to be so out you're not going to be there at that point to defend it and say hey wait a bit you need to stop you know i don't want t seize from the address and it says the property research consists of blank trust and then it says on the form as we have it see attached and then there's attachment that lists several computers with serial numbers and so forth and then steinmetz signatures at the bottom of the first page but when he signed it was it blank where it says the attached yes your honor it was bike at that point and the testimony came out during the suppression hearing as well the defendant was handed the form the search what was he consenting to then if it says the property research consists of blank and there limitations on the search or two and he knows in his show the significance of defendant knows that he is not going to be present at that time and he still sciences form doesn't seem like a very good practice for the police department to fill in the consent form after the man's already signed very kind of puts the attached and attach a list of computers and make the document look like he consented to the search of those computers when really that's there and that would be like a warrant return if it says here's the property that was seized but this purports to be a permission to search you know ahead of time and here's what i consent to them searching you can then add he knows what the basis of this is and this is not something new we had heard he'd already heard this from detective house we back about you know several hours earlier but what was he told what the content of the thai schools going to be he was told by the tech fos the very beginning what they were going to search for him talked about computers the scientists that would that was not on well then i would say about the text of sergeant white to talk about computers and stuff that were  going to be seized but he was not specific about here's the items because they had an object this was signed in the context of the discussion about a computer that's minute i know you've got computers but i don't want you to do anything more with computers i want you to examine so so when you go back you know the defendant had never revoked his his consent you know he had many of opportunities to do so and then you is when he's first talked about the consent to search is about an hour and forty minutes and into this so it's not it's not like the police are where he came down trying to get him sent over there's multiple sense over the type of time period that you know the answer now judge or look you're in a better position than i answer that thank you to quickly sum up the only the only statement that we'd like to make in regards to issue number three is that we have the charge we have a witness that will testify to the charge and effectually the admission of all this miscellaneous pictures and information amounts to the jury taking well if i don't not great practice to oral consent which differs from the forms no that wasn't precisely what i said i said it was a great practice to have the man sign a consent form with a blank in it and then fill in the blank after he's already signed it and point and or argument judges that he doesn't even know what he's consenting to the discussion about about various computers and whatnot was two hours and twenty three hours and twenty four minutes prior to mr steinmetz being given this blank form which he the it's it's clear that he doesn't know what he's consent to what he's not consenting to and i stand on  like i thought that he they talked about searching the computers and he gave oral consent to that many signed a consent form to search the residence from where the computers were located and then why that's so unclear and then subsequently he's given a form a consent form that's point well no it still says i consent to search property located in the house it just then goes on to say the property consists of blank and that part was not till then but it honors this court based on the record must grant the appeal remand this case back to the trial level i thank you for your time attention thank you very much for your argument mr scanlon thank you to both counsel for your presentations