matter what the outcome on issue one and two is this doesn't even matter for a preliminary critical hearing back in the trial court that said i'd like to turn to the two larger issues in this case first the affidavit of the search  was the fact that there were only these two nebulous records one from us probably mission which is problematic we'll talk about for a second but assuming for this argument that was accurate and then the fact that utility service for the power company wasn't mr parker's name that that isn't actually how the investigation unfold originally the probation department told him that he was one house that he was once three older i believe probation told him that they had supporters and that is residence at sixteenth deferential to trial strategy in such situations not when trial would trump counsel for gold is the best avenue of attack the presumption the trial counsel is acting reasonably is rebuttal and that's what we have very little probable cause pointing to this lead us there were these two things if it turns out that one of those sources of information wasn't getting the exact address and if there was something else they are that basically back to fifteen three the probation record came back to sixty three that's the air the other area did the explanation of how he determined on his own that it must have been some sort of mistake was never in the affidavit itself perhaps a hearing  the probation record and there still would be the address from the power company right we still have that coming back so is there any himself admitted we didn't really know where he wants because there was this complete information so while if if this event if you would remove the rock island stuff entirely maybe the analysis changes and then one utility it was that one utility record is intentionally but with reckless disregard for the truth included in the morning after data and we don't hear that here because they don't also do these due diligence and did find it was the fifteenth street very well may have done his due diligence but he didn't do what he was supposed to do and that was to tell the magistrate who was the responsible for issuing this warrant what that two diligent what's the ask the hue that's the big problem here counsel was very very focused on the fact that it doesn't really matter that this error was in the war that this this whole state was a war because it turned out to be the right address but that's not what the constitution mandates if the police officer if the police violated the constitution flagrantly but they end up being right that there's a crime we still hold that the constitution will cost that search because we don't want to condone this sort of behavior from the police oh ok and i agree with with all of that so but if you get t this bill from the power company and it does exist and we had something out i mean how do you get to the fact that the misrepresentation is the to one side if you you know if you go back and they're given the outline he said he may have been may have been fine he may have had the opportunity to explain that or say we have five other documents that show his address and they can go back and kind of amend the affidavit and add to it the affidavit is what it is the only thing that can happen to the affidavit now is the false or misleading statement can be stricken from the false statement that we're talking about here has to be stricken from the