protections guaranteed under the fourth amendment have such dire consequences as the case against mr valma as you're probably familiar based on reading the briefing the majority of the cases rested upon a confidential several things first of all we talked about the buchanan transaction which eventually of the confidential source had given information out and eventually buchanan was arrested yes and that was sort of proved yes there was there arose a transaction where further confidential source of that rosa was bringing in money and if your meter of the year for should have money for me yes it seems as i read the rules the transaction rose actually came in and she actually had the money but they couldn't print on the fact that she knew the source of the money so actually he was correct in the fact that rosa was going to bring in the money but as far as i can see the reason the impressive you could make the case am i wrong in that well i would need to actually get the details from i don't have the record in front of me but i did not in my opinion the only the only concession that i will give that in fact it had the only proven evidence to support to cry operate was the buchanan and that we'll have to look at that let me i have to give you another one it seems to me and it troubled me and i went went back that there were prior transactions that were listed before rosa before buchanan and that the c had listed off numerous persons two or three that we had already arrested and we knew of him being the supplier to those he named by name and then he came to mr buchanan who we also knew currently was not in custody he said he was supplying him with kilograms of powder cocaine now the way i read it and i may be wrong and i haven't tried to integrate the whole thing but i need your input was it sounds like before we get into the actual things and as they were developing the information who this guy was to see asked if they knew that he had already been a base for the confidentiality for the for the confidence of the type of information that the c s knew i e he knew about similar drug deals and he pointed out the people that they knew about that were doing similar drug deals and in fact because you can do it now how much more do they have to have in order to have that the reliability of the next transaction which was of all well again in my opinion the only reliable source you can work up back and look at where you're referring to after pants well i mean we just found they have a lot of cases but each of them seem to have just different testimony as to exactly how things unfolded for example where the wallet was what the information they had was i mean again we know information was provided on  gave them buchanan if you will and they already knew about the canon kind of cuts both ways what is your take on if he gives them information about somebody that they already know about is that information or is that a way to corroborate is credibility or does that mean that he's just not an actual s well i would agree with you that it cuts both ways my position under the case why is that whether they corroborated that he was accurate with buchanan or whether if he tells them about buchanan that they already know about uganda and it's actually traveling with him and showing him photos then you're saying that that really isn't enough with the confidential informant to on walking in and out of the room stat you know and even the interpreter had a hard time frankly with the tapes and of course that's another problem the interpreter testifying to what these tapes mean i mean that you would like to get to the end of the i would like  agree let me pursue a variation on judgment at each point but we're trying to figure out what the police are trying to figure out and then therefore we're trying to figure out just how reliable is the information they're getting from parti a and reliability could be established by he gave them a successful prosecution he basically did with canon but you can also establish and by he gave them accurate information and so when he gives them accurate information rose is going to show up with money and she does when he gives them accurate information you give us some names that we know about them he's given access and we don't know whether was accurate accurate kill him i mean so i mean they're going to have some mixed motives here maybe he gives up people that he knows already are in their database but for some reason he's got it in for mr zavala whose arrival i mean testimony from the one he provided at the suppression hearing and that was she actually came back to do business or bring money and the court has now mr parks stated you have to tell the whole truth basically accepting the fact that he had lied now of provided in the past invite of the same type of criminal activity as a current information the inference of trustworthy is even stronger veracity maybe also established with missions against people interests seems that passenger was trying to work out about his prior information to them with regard to drug transactions that he'd already read people i don't know how that all fits but it seems to fit in that he made admissions against penal interest he gave them information about past drug response to a general question and then there was an objection or move to strike that testimony and then there's another one where the government says what was it are these do you what's going on in this case and then things start  defendant's attorney had asked his own interpreter to try and with regard to girls the idea of using the code words and proof for instance in this case because we have a transcript the idea that girls mentions of course it's not a mystery why it's harmless because this to me well first of all above and beyond and said oh and by the way i can tell you in my experience having done this this many here are saying is if we can view harmless serve with regard to are just right and she's there was no basically the government offered her up as a translator is that correct was valid for the rest of pain in his residence and approximately sixty thousand dollars also was recovered the court recognized that he was familiar with other drug dealers of equal higher lower levels there was testimony from officer pants that's mr yours house with fake cocaine we could not give him real cocaine and if mr all of your discovered it was fake cocaine we would have a problem and we could not create the exigency to enter that house so he said that was why the deal was not completed but that did not take away from the fact that mr head of france had this information that he was aware of mr b can his activities part of this that were first purchased was set up mr with mr buchanan and most importantly the court recognized the district  spaces in that parking lot sort of a very specific time very specific location all of this is that his physical description matched the physical description given by mr partita beyond the fact that he's hispanic is to say the person the priest lives scription is think i've got fastly indicates that all instances referenced by a law enforcement informant supplied by the the information scuse me supplied by the confidential informant appeared to be accurate and was to the extent capable of corroboration concern by observation the persistent getting off that's a good thing kluge and and then he goes through some examples but he doesn't he doesn't explicitly go through all the examples and so now what standard of review do we do now we're going to go back and review that is correct ok so we're going to go back and we did no one see if the conclusion forget about what the judge said because he's a little shy very frankly on his examples about if we're going to use our law and determine whether with this man and this contradiction or source of reliable did i misrepresent or did i can misinterpret what i saw on the record with regard to when where and the confidential source party that was was arrested he related to other drug transactions and he was saying i can give up this guy this guy sufficiently reliable and how do you determine that is what kind of information is provided past what kind of information is provided currently how it was corroborated you know he's provided no information prior to the hears arrest and the time that other than nothing i mean nothing happened i mean there was a gun in his throat there are correct correct and based on the advance of that evening that he was tipped off to well what does that show as t respond to defense counsel so good every time there's a party to participate in a phone call he was deported by the office of what occurred what happened and so on now he tell whether it's in spanish or not whether it's in english and mr party says ok he's going to be driving a i can't remember who specifically stated the record but mr all of error the bar doesn't occur they they go back to spokane and he's rest probably two to three days later so well but you see that we're talking about a well your honor i believe you have a problem cause of death point to a masochist we're trying to figure out it's a time to act on the tip with respect is involved what do they know about the reliability and the fact that they arrest him two days later is neither here nor eventually arrested for good you know just basically talking on the telephone about a drug transaction and they had a problem because at that point when they had made telephone calls to him prior to his rest and you have that in the record that is on the record your honor i believe it's in all chapin's is direct testimony i don't have as your number in front of me but i can certainly  when seventy four based on those phone call that they didn't corroborate anything about it until later correct and that is correct ok ron they didn't get a search warrant based on that information and that's a search warrant a search corroborat code word is significant if we were to determine that the translator went beyond translation and with actually kind of giving comments about drug transactions and people in title three investigations i assume you would argue well in the end it's harmless why would it be harmless in your view why are our first arguments proper  of knowledge of what the word means in context of how it was played and it was substantially that makes her an expert i mean if you ask me what does the word what does this word mean is it a slang word you could say yes that word in spanish might mean dolls or girls does it also have a slang meaning in your experience yes sometimes it means drugs and that's translator but didn't she go beyond that is drug dealing one on one i mean we see this so many times the drug dealers if you will to use code all the time and she was not asked as i understand it didn't take her out of the university of nevada who is someone who could barely translate spanish to say would you translate a few words they took or you took her in there because she deal before with drug transactions as a translator of transcripts made in drug transactions she wasn't trying to do a linguistic analyst of the spanish language and so when she was put on the stand as i understand it drug dealing one on one she used to translate other transcripts and she had the fastest so they said when you translate your run across these words one of the mean and so it's a word means spanish it means girl well what else if also you also use it nice transcript that i've experienced it means drugs now we're going to get into expertise this is the translator who's doing her job trying to figure out what language means that is knowledge and the reason i have this knowledge is because i'm sitting here in drug deals and drugs for me i'm doing more than just translating when she's testifying isn't she i mean did did you ask is that where the judge actually said wait a second she seems to be going a little far think run i would respectfully disagree with the court you can sense that i'm not asking her opinion about something i'm asking her based on her knowledge whether you're a good whether you have that knowledge or not it's really based on your knowledge she does have specialized knowledge but i'm asked not to ask her opinion i'm said based on what you know what does that word mean put it in context and i don't believe that would be asking for an expert can wait if you were if if the reason you asked her to do that is because the discussion was significant between these two individuals correct correct and the translation of that word was material aspect of your case  that she was asked about it was she's the one who's interviewed in the transcript so the jury's got an ok you wrote that transcript and while the jury certainly heard the tapes and looking at this transcript you're the one who wrote this what does this mean ok in put it in context but when they went down to make to buy the sale they were late that's why i didn't write it was all set up in the end and then if he was arrested later was it was completed later but there was no completion of whatever was set up because they didn't get ecstasy and we couldn't get in the house we waited for a while he eventually ended up leaving we couldn't complete the drug now is now tell me if i'm wrong somewhere in the fact that the deal was supposed that he told he was going to leave a nine o'clock  bogus drugs it was originally set down he was going to leave if you don't make it nine o'clock and nine o'clock comes he leaves that is correct in fact is also coming specifies the phone calls are coming from mr all over while they're appeal that he did not feel were incorporated in the brief is that correct yes and without going into the details of those and you communicated with him as to why in your being transported to california so yes i had it seemed to me that his motion his second part of his motion as i understood it was really duplicative of the earlier proceedings which was the question of what substan be included in his appeal and i guess the third point is simply one that he he wanted whoever was his lawyer on this appeal to also be his baby as a lawyer which doesn't as we know doesn't always