obviously admitted to serious crimes and as a result of evidence that was see at the time of his arrest following statements he made in clear violation of miranda conditionally so that we could take this appeal to challenge what we think was a plainly mistaken ruling on clear legal and factual errors with respect to the search on march eleventh two thousand and fourteen how they described it is how the government described it in examining its witnesses at the suppression hearing that they were out searching for young it was really only after the evidence was concluded that the government contended for you get there why wasn't it reasonable for the government agents having exhausted their possibilities as to where he would be he seems to have had a series of girlfriends and spend the night with the various and so the police are told to place one no he's not here maybe he said place to and so on and so forth until they come to place four and in fact two of the officers know that he had had a prior relationship with ad taken up with her again what son reasonable doubt the officer is looking at place for  dependent on information gleaned after they crossed the threshold nonetheless we can affirm on independent ground just looking at the record in the facts if we discount that fact that they crossed the threshold and got information after the threshold why isn't the evidence that the police had prior to the crossing of the threshold sufficient to support a conclusion that they had a reason to believe that he was both resident  there's lynch was trying to get a similar question to put aside what the record shows about their subjective mental state the officers when they arrived objectively does the information that the record shows was conveyed to officers by the various people that they encountered and by the record checks that they had done constitute what could be a reason to believe that he was resident or present or is your position that no that evidence simply could never be  place that had any reason to suspect he might be in fact that's what the magistrate said when we got the argument he actually said i don't think the government would contend they thought it was his residence he'd say they had a reason to think he'd be there they did have a reason to think he might we do with the fact that an officer outside not one of the office is going up the staircase so the defendant in the window of the apartment being that is away in a footnote in my reply brief by office for me show the outside officers testimony that exactly what he saw is that if someone opened the blinds he said it was the defendant and seconds later he saw the we ok how do we really need to get into the debate about whether reasonable belief is equivalent to probable cause you know in this case i don't think as the lower court will for mr young not going to you can i step back i know that's the government's position and it may in fact be correct but is there any real need and the law for us in dating young at some point for approximately only one month they went to her house street apartment found either webster there it appears or no but if you're there it's not clear it's not massively confusing by any means but they then proceeded they had learned and found young at crystal's apartment during execution of a search warrant they wanted to talk to crystal which is what people do officers when they don't have a certain address and open doors to talk to prior to us has a crystal had a new boyfriend at that point and young was racially liable that's correct and we i could not find in the records of a basis for hurt this tip except that the agent seemed to have a prior relationship with webster as well as some of these other folks and they then went to in fact she said it was  didn't mention coleman they went to the walnut street apartment and which webster described very well so they readily located that that's when it rostrum noticed john coleman's car in the parking lot partly often on two to four weeks and i think you were that's back then you know it sound it was it was well how could she then she must have some knowledge of that they have the relationship i thought that her statement was that if he's not with these other people he must be back with her and then she's reporting what the nature of the relationship was back then i guess through i have coached and if you check no if you check those three then then he has to be back with his former he must be back with her and then she describes the back and then he stayed a couple nights here or there she doesn't even represent if he's back with her he's now living with her so i think the record interpreted as the lower court did that information went and then confirmed that her car is there it's eleven pm so tell me the language that you think shows that she's representing it without any knowledge of why she's saying that we now know the nature of his relationship with her at can logically have more than oh i told them i'm just trying to get a sense of a couple nights here or there or the government's business that counts as resident i think armed with the additional information which as well which is on the shows and rostrums  independently have knowledge that young and coleman have over the course of quite some time had this long standing off again on again relationship webster's statements could confront you with what i'm going to tell you when i find it in the record they have knowledge of a longstanding relationship in which we know about the content of that relationship is he spends a couple night with her here or there easily staying with her in some random sense but then he was a resident of her apartment and then they corroborate that with their own knowledge or at least several years that for me show to go back to letting you know that mr young and ms colvin have this on again off again relationship i think they could reasonably at apartment to read the supreme court case law as making it snowball if they have a reasonable basis to believe he's there that it is where he is not a residence by the supreme court language derives from cases in which there was a residence here maybe he was residing with her maybe he was and we have no idea if that duration of it but do you read the supreme court case as making this search be wrong about it i mean i'm sorry right about it so they could have probable cause to stop the vehicle and they're there are no drugs there they were wrong and that person was probably twenty this far beyond it but as long as the agents had a reasonable belief on those two prongs believe you live there whether he actually lived there i think judgment is that's you some circuit seem to have held that if it's not your own residen proceed on the assumption that whether you're a resident or not the government has to prove that the government had a reasonable belief as to both residence and presence i can tell from your brief whether your meaning to suggest you don't have to prove a reasonable belief as to residency or not it seemed like you were not challenging that you had to make an argument that there was a reasonable belief as to residence in order for the evidence to be usable