the police the court roger jordan for the appellate court williams we're here today because the district court denied corey williams his fourth i'm in the right to be free from unconstitutional seizure and based on that essentially found that he could not take advantage of testimony at trial in which his code for his took advantage of it ultimately led to the dismissal of the code defendants additionally the corey way it was denied standing the trial court finding that he did not have standing in this case and for those reasons we asked this court to reverse the court williams had no prior convictions and he is now serving a fourteen year sentence his two co defendants their mo suppress twelve b three c is clear that a motion suppress the evidence must be filed pretrial however it provides that if the basis for the motion is reasonably avail reasonably available twelve c three provides that a motion that is not filed pretrial is on tonally unless there's a good cause good cause for the failure to follow that motion court must look first at the facts that were presented and provide two defense counsel prior to trial and the facts that avail themselves are presented post trial and these will show that there was good cause why robert  law enforcement had gotten that information and law enforcement had been executed search warrant based on the four corners of that warrant trial counsel had no idea that this store owner was a government agent and the store owner had done a series of other things prior to that making her a government agent that's all that robert jenkins had was of four corners of the ward subsequently and that there was a pretrial motion suppress the us as the other two defendants which was denied by the trial court which that u p s store owner was not called at the pretrial motion nor was the officer that have the direct contact with that store owner at trial there was testimony from the store owner and the u p s torode or testified that she in fact had opened up ninety nine percent of the packages that came to her store over the past decade that she believed had drugs  package that she believed had drugs ninety nine percent of the time she opened up those packages and she guessed it was probably about one a month for the last ten years she also stated this the important part of her testimony besides the fact that she been paid for some of these package she stated this that law enforcement knew it acquiesced in the fact that she opened up these packages they had knowledge that she was open up these packages and they told her through testimony she's testified that they'd said well that's not a good idea but it's your store do what you want to do so in effect law enforcement knew that she was doing this and she in fact became a government agent for law enforcement there was testimony also from  linchpin about the fact that she was actually a government agent at the conclusion of the government's case counsel for the codefendant thompson moved for a directed verdict and moved to reopen causes a flexible standard what i present to the court is that the basis for the motion suppressed was it reasonably available to mr jenkins at the time that he was given the search warrant all he had were the four corners of the warrant no information a government agent and in fact when there was a motion to suppress the evidence that evidence was not presented at the motion hearing so when i submit to the court it's law enforcement actually knew that they had acquiesced to this in california released from these charges and he sits with the sentence because he wasn't given this information which ultimately the government has constructed knowledge of that so i submit to the court that was good cause no to the court the committee notes to twelve c three no good cause a flexible standard in the reason for that is because it's not always available in the nossa twelve b three appointee might not have access to the information needed to raise particular claims any questions on that go into my standing issue secondly when the trial court denied the motion for a new trial and motion suppressed the evidence the trial court stated that the court waived to not have standing in this case accordingly intestate in the package that all of the parties agreed he was the intended recipient he had the tracking numbers on his cell phone the worse text message exchanges between the sender of the package codefendant thompson and a court williams concerning where the package was to be mailed to different aspects of the a delivery of that package and fourthly that package was ultimately brought he had arranged for this package to be sent to that address that he go to he actually had the tracking number on his person for that package the text messages back and forth between he in the center showed where that package to be sent and ultimately stand depends on whether defend is able to establish the subjective expectation of privacy with respect to the items be a search or items being seized and two whether that expectation of privacy is one which society would recognize as objective lee reasonable us image of the court that occurring williams had a subjective privacy interest in that package based on all the events tracking number on his cell phone to text messages back and forth an drums were shipped law enforcement did a search of the drums without a without a search warrant and those drums were then taken by two other individuals from another location and ultimately can salles was found that the court could determine who roland martin the alias on the shipping labels war but said for the reality he had a probably see interest in those drums even though his name wasn't on the drums because he had the shipping receipt the receipt for the drums in his pocket which show that he had a privacy interest in those drugs the court found that both can solace and theory al had a privacy interest in those drums and the evidence was suppressed i submit to this court that case is important reasons number one it shows that more than one individual can have a privacy interest in a thing in this case the package both direct the addressee and likewise on a car williams who had the number on his cell phone that showed he had a privacy interest and secondly the fact that williams had the tracking number showed that he had a privacy interest in this package and was interested in that package and i think this is a  that mr jordan raised which both boys both regard the fourth amendment issue in a nutshell this court should affirm the district court's denial of relief here the district court correctly found that the motion was untimely and that there was no good cause and the basic reason for that is because a car williams had the information he needed to file a motion to suppress time and he is not similarly situated to either philip thompson or carr the other two charge defendants in this matter start off with a good cause argument your honor suppression motions are supposed to be filed timely well before trial and the rules allow the hearing of a late motion only with a showing of good cause the district court correctly found a good cause here because there wasn't anything new that came out that was needed to file a motion to suppress mr jordan makes a point of saying if the basis of the motion is not available that can be a reason for a good cause to lay here a motion and that's right but that's not what you had here the allegation here that mr jordan raises is that patricia tauranga the u p s store owner who opened this box meth in san bernardino california was acting as an agent of the state or an agent asian of the state of california and did so without a warrant this was not an argument that could not have been made and this was information that would have been that patricia trying to open the box was information that would have been provided in discovery and there's been no allegation of a discovery violation or the defense didn't get that discovery as the district court made certainly akari williams was aware by the time of trial and well before the that the disk that patricia trying to wrangle open this box and that the contents of the box would have been used as evidence against which mr williams it was known so well that his co defendants phillips thompson and phillips thompson f suppression motion arguing the exact issue that durango was being used as an agent of the state it was not limited to the four corners of the warrant although the facts may have been but certainly the allegation was made that durango was used as an agent of the state and that motion is that thirty two fifty three to thirty two seventy in the record the other defendant jerry will read adopted the pretrial motion at that time there is nothing unique about a curry williams which would have prevented him from at least adopting a motion at that time record believe they were present in the courtroom during the motion hearing but the motion was filed publicly on pacer it was not a sealed document is not a sealed proceedings a district court saying they knew or should have known that the motion was filed in that day and that it was being heard now the fact that additional trial testimony came out at the trial from durango that arguably may have strengthened the merits of the motions press didn't mean the basic facts were not available to mr williams more avail as just as they were to mr thompson and mr were at the time previously and so i don't think that shows i think the district court's right to find it that shows there was no good cause to wait for them and aside from that kind of piggybacking onto the good cause argument mr jordan's made the pendency of the prosecution and i don't think the record supports that i think it's an interpretation but i think the district court's interpretation is more correct if you look at page nineteen thirty one of the record this is when philip thomson counsel is that the after the government is rested he makes two motions he moves for a directed verdict any moves to read urge his motion to suppress after thompson's counsel argues the court turned to mr jenkins mr williams counsel and that's at that point mr williams mr williams his counsel says we adopted enjoined in the motions as well and that's on page nine hundred thirty five of the record and i'll point out i inadvertently or incorrectly stated in one nine hundred thirty four in the brief and it's actually nine hundred thirty five but you see that that's two records right there those were the questions those were the motions he was adopting it wasn't an adoption of every motion made during the pendency and it's certainly didn't come across of the district court as it was an adoption of every motion throughout the pendency of the of the hearing and the district court stated that what the chari williams was attempting to adopt was a motion to rehearse but the problem is you can't read something you've never heard in the first place and you can't adopt in trial a co defendants pretrial motion that has been resolved pretrial and the court came up with some reasons and there are several reasons why that practice should not be allowed several policy reasons  quickly just to double check and follow up judge judge minor akari williams was not present at the suppression hearing i'm getting that from my co counsel trial counsel on that and are on a thirty seven thirty three should help with that site  there are several policy reasons why it's not proper for a codefendant to adopt another co defendants pretrial already resolved motion during trial there are several what i can name five that are pertinent to this case in the first is simply that the rules don't allow it the rules require rule twelve acquires a motion to be filed before trial and as the district court recognized to do otherwise allows the defendant such as williams in this case to circumvent those clear and express rules another reason is that allowing it would actually affect the orderly criminal judicial proceedings and waste resources the reason we have suppression hearings before the reason these issues are raised before trial is that if there is a decision in favor of the defendant evidence is excluded it may  need for trial and the time to in time expenses to bring a jury in handling those another thing is it allows for the possibility of unnecessary gamesmanship and sandbagging it would allow a defendant such as williams to pretrial take a position saying i have nothing to do with this package i have no interest in this package this package was not mine the government's got me wrong go to trial be faced with the evidence against you realize the evidence is pretty hurtful to you and then say well obviously it's mine in light of what the government says and now i didn't have that information before that's a gamesmanship that doesn't need to be played especially when a defendant is given the testimonial protections at a pretrial suppression hearing to take the stand and thirty two fifty three which is mr thompson's motion to suppress timely motion to suppress the evidence they argue that they had a deputy's report and in support of a warrant it in there they make the argument that patricia durango was the motion couldn't be made of first time and i think that's the critical thing that there's no reason to believe mr williams didn't have it and by mr williams not filing time it prevented a fully developed record on the issues mr williams would like to bring which is another reason not to allow delayed options one example you see here in mr jordan's brief is in addition to arguing about trying go being an agent problem he also argues that the search of his own house at three thirteen grace was a violation of the of the fourth amendment and he bases that on trial testimony and i think in the reply brief says we didn't respond to it well we didn't respond to it but we also didn't have a fully developed record a trial record is not the same issues the suppression so that's not the time to bring out exi circumstances or legitimate privacy interest those things are not issues that would be before the jury in the fact we don't have that because we don't have an evidentiary hearing to develop the record and the reason we don't have a developed record on that is because mr williams did not timely file his motion when he could have been had he certainly by certainly by the time of trial the police officers would enter his house so there's no reason the motion could easily argue not respectfully no your honor and i realize that's something that mr jordan brings up to and i would say similarly the record is not fully developed at that time yes and i would and i would say this there maybe mr jordan points out in his brief there's no reason mr jenkins should not have done it if he doesn't he didn't do it it was ineffective assistance i would only say there could be several reasons why mr jenkins did not file the motion i can rattle off some including maybe it was a strategy maybe he didn't want to show his hand before trial maybe he was cooperating attempting to get a deal to the to the last minute maybe he felt as th did that his client did not have standing to bring in the motion would have been frivolous those are just some things i can rattle off the truth is i don't know why mr jenkins did it at this point neither does mr jordan and it's simply because we haven't had an evidentiary hearing on that matter so i don't think it's ineffective assistance of counsel on this record yes i will i think and i think the right thing to do would be let that play out way so at a time that could be let that play out as this court normally does in a hades proceeding and let that go down the line i don't think the record is fully developed for the score to address that at this point moving on to the issue of standing the district court correctly found that to and i would say this is an alternative reason i think if you agree with the district court that there was no good cause for the late motion i don't think you have to go any further than that but if you do go to the alternative ruling which i believe will be on plane or review i think you can affirm and should affirm the district court here finding that there was no spending mr jordan makes a point that mr thompson and mr rudd had the benefit of this they were given found to have standing and they are no longer in jail i won't say that mr williams first and foremost is just not similarly situated to either one of those defendants and it comes down to the cases that we mention the packaging cases of daniel parks pierce and the givens and kerning case that this court relied on in deciding person who was found to have standing had a receipt of the drugs in his pocket mr williams doesn't have the money in the trunk what he had was a tracking number and not something that he and mr thompson were going back and forth saying send this to this address and here's the tra number but that doesn't show that he had a possessory interest in the box your honor all that shows as at he was at most maybe a director of the conspiracy he was directing things were where they were going and what i have a track i don't believe the record shows that your honor the content the phone evidence that was introduced were showing constant communications between thompson and loretta and i think there were actually three or four packages similar to that but what you would see on the package delivery by the agents in run of the mill a run of the mill yes somebody would do it in the end i think in this case since it was addressed to a regular read it would have been the one that would have that would have picked that up what is important and what's urgent here is it was not case it is at best plain error and i'll acknowledge i think there's an unanswered question in this court judge and we didn't brief it and so i won't go into it a lot since we didn't brief it but you know you only get i finally understood what you're asking judged but i certainly think the overarching standard of play in areas suggested by basque was i think there's a question of if there's no good cause shown to you even get to it at all i think that's quests suggest you do but i don't think that's affinity with and without getting too much l emphasize a tenth circuit case just came out two days ago united states versus bowline which actually kind of categorically categorizes where the courts are on that issue of whether it can be really resolved or not and obviously we didn't brief it i didn't twenty eight but i will give you the cite for you under two thousand and nineteen westlaw one one zero four six five eight and in short it just kind of shows there's a split on whether you even hear it if there's not a showing of good cause but what you do here for the standing under under this error that under any standard review the district court got this right mr williams was neither the sender of the package he was not the recipient of the package he was not the named alias as the sender or the package and it was not his address to receive the package the only connection he has to this situation where just because you lease something out you maintain a privacy interest of everything in that house to do so would put every landlord having a privacy interest in just about every tenants every time it's i ten it's item i don't think that's what we have what we really have here is that mr williams may have been an intended recipient of the drugs but that's not the test and it williams texted in may have even directed send the drugs here doesn't make him the recipient or the sender it just makes him a leader in the conspiracy and one who's directing the we're going to zation if we're going to say an intended recipient has a privacy interest in the drugs at any time just because their intended recipient we're really going to get back to the point where we have automatic standing just take the example of a source of cocaine in houston who gives a cocaine to a mule who drives it to an intended recipient in new orleans well the intended recipient new orleans doesn't sit there with  coke he gives it to somebody and you give that to somebody of ham and he gives it to somebody in biloxi atlanta birmingham and so all of these people are ultimate recipients of this drug and so if we have the rule is intended recipients everyone in that conspiracy would have standing to effect that that's not what the law says that's now the supreme court has held you have to have your own personal privacy rights mr williams does in fact mr williams has done everything to distance himself from this package statement in a footnote that says five the record i'm sorry in a footnote he says i'm not emitting guilt but if the government basically i'm summarizing if the government argues that i'm guilty because i have this box then it gives me standing and that's a problem the government doesn't give someone standing you either have the privacy interest or you don't you either have a fourth amendment right to argue or you don't it has nothing to do with what the government gives it's whether you have it and here is this court's summarizing pierce if you're not the sender they were the recipient of article you don't have a privacy interest in the package even if you're the intended recipient consistent with that you can affirm on this basis william's name was not on the spokes if his name or even his alias or even his home address not his home address his addresses the recipient would h been on the box this may be a different case but they're not he wants to claim intercity want to claim a privacy interest in a box that was neither from him nor to him but actually went to a real third person who is the name recipient williamson recent us to think maybe i should make the same measure investigate further and understand that your honor and perhaps that might be a practice that could be used and didn't have the evidence that she was in fact the evidence that was provided was that testified that in the ten packages the detective haggle officer hegel from california that had received from this store owner did never been opened by her before and that was test where they came out the pretrial motions would be an effective systems of culture play if that were the case because it did affect a substantial right i did present that argument in brief all however i do believe that there was good cause here in the reason for that is as i mentioned before finally of i'd like to talk about standing because there was danger in this case the cases mentioned by the government were all cases which can be factually distinguished in this case there's a difference because  had the tracking number on his cell phone which unique about that video reale obviously was received in his pocket one nine hundred ninety two this is a modern age we have tracking numbers on her cell phone that's all we keep in touch with packages additionally other layers of fact showing he had standing that is williams was texting back and forth with the sender about where to send the package and that was on his cell phone cinna to that address on gray street which is right down the street from my house and as soon as the package was to know when that athletic year is going to come to my house when the athletic gear comes to my house with my name on it to send to my address i take that package bring it to his dorm room and he opens it he opens the package he has a tracking number and he has a privacy interest in that