our final case for this morning is united states against shriver jenks morning may it please the court i'm here today on behalf of aaron shriver who was convicted and sentenced last october to seven years in prison incredibly patiently and considerately deliberately handled this case my client in both the underlying state which is the issue of the  giving him he has many many days in court with great patience and respect but i think she made a mistake here and in making a determination she had made an oral determination essentially it was bond was an issue that had been briefed to him been argued and she announced that that because of an intervening state court indictment it was going to cleanse it was going to expunge it was going to move sanitize to do away with any potential taint and arguably anyway and walk or rest at the state level and she promised at that hearing that she would issue a ruling in writing so the parties are perfectly clear as to what i think the issues are so that there is a clear record on what the holding is and so quoting from her order said because this court concludes that the collection of schreiber's d n a after his state grand jury stage it does not and i take it that's why there is no contention in this case that the grand jury indictment was invalid i believe that's what you are and so all you have is the simple mean first off your honor talk about king which is the taking of a d n a sample incident to an arrest that was not the case in the case before the court today the d and the indictment supports probable cause that my question is what's missing there is nothing about how long you wait after probable cause or when probable cause i just indictments show probable cause and probable cause supports the taking of the d n a sample my question is what's missing in this sequence fact the result of it the grand jury indictment does not remove and of itself does not remove the taint of an unsupported unfounded unlawful in violation fourth amendment right search or seems to me the only way you can get there is to say that the indictment is invalid the only way the indictment could be invalid is if the exclusionary rule applied to grand juries and you've conceded i think entirely correctly that it does not evidence tying him to the liquor store which was the focus of the stop he was not a witness he wasn't describes where he was not described by any of the witnesses being an artist that there's going to be a lot of discussion of sure  being granted the other two co defendants after as the government mentioned that a prior hearing judge chides issued fifteen or sixteen page opinions pointing out that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car was impermissible fruit of the poisonous treaty and that the indictment in of itself doesn't end the inquiry and i think that if it was unsupported in the first instance it remains circuit is something of an outlier in the area of fourth amendment law and i believe that to say that with a magic wand the indictment removes the taint for all purposes for all time it's just not the want i don't think is the correct correctly determine the regardless of the state courts decision on the issue of suppression the officer who collected defend its beautiful spot in november two thousand and eleven could have had an objective lead a reasonable good faith belief that the grand jury indictment in may two thousand and eleven provide eighty three case which posed the question of whether defendants fourth amendment right against unlawful seizure and detention extends past your dish will determination of probable cause if the judicial determination was based on fabricated evidence there's been no allegation here fabricated evidence or that the underlying grand jury indictment was somehow invalid the reason i believe it's an opposite just to briefly also point out that the district court did not abuse a scratch and and making its ruling without first an of itself on its face the state court indictment was the end of the inquiry we would request that this court reversed that decision and to the extent the court releases necessary send it back for a full evidentiary hearing as judge would identify the issue however how can i determine whether or not there was probable cause for the stop or arrest in the state court case without holding her own evidence or hearing to determine the issues thank you for your consideration thank you very