the circuit court found this dispositive pages some two nineteen of the record but when you say dispositive i think you mean do you mean to say that because the registration could have been in either address  after leaving that location most notable is the one transaction where the buyer will stop mr cox testified that he in fact contacted the same number that you've been using for eighteen months contacting the defendant defendant arrive at  what should the police do regarding the we know drugs for the bell what address should they simply disregard that and say we're not going to consider that we're only going to consider those reports that actually connect the defendant to the hillside address because that supports our developed after the execution of the first floor and before the issue is up a second or no he tweaking the hours until the same information that was relied on for the knowledge that fair to say that it was because the first warning basically didn't recover what they expected to recover they know that it's somewhere or something going to look for it that the next likely spot that it's this is my last one but i have a lot of bill to you and the police break it up right there and they arrest both and the defendant and police ask them where do you live and the defendant says i live at this address with the police  have based on the recovery of contraband there based on his statement that i have a lot more available to me with the police be able to go to a circuit court judge and he has for a warrant to search the defendant's home where he says he lives as opposed to lists case where the plan says i have no connection to that just like what the police have probable cause to go search that person's home where he admits that he has a lot more contraband available to him and he admits that he lives at a particular  have more on the order judge a judge who never denied a warrant to feels that way every aguy question be granted by the police but if there's probable cause that doesn't make any difference at the same point if there is no prob apartment to a narcotic transaction with demonstrates the officers that in fact have a definitive stop along the way and picked up or caught some place else rather if there was a drop point that would be a to that location but the officers knew directly what apartment they were targeting this isn't a high rise where there's fifty floors and they just see somebody walking in and they don't know where it's at all the contacts they have had with the defendant and stemming from this location the city it's a little bit easier you do have records of the recovery from under front steps or in fences or things like that the location that is the suburbs and saying well there's a garage not attached but still fill it with you most likely have been addressed in this and they have tried to bootstrap and officers wasted one of those cases that i education read was people versus mcduck which is a case out of the was nothing there well but let's let's talk about you know that probably causes oftentimes just said to you you have to use a commonsense approach that given the issue is the first w and the recovery dollars as well as an alert by the dog and no recovery of contraband in the vehicle or on his person would you say that between the well it's been shown to just about i think in fact here i have the exact number but ninety or ninety five percent of the money that is in the system today  how many of this is me this case was easy to deal with listening to him duck what if this is a very very smart individual who just simply never allows that to happen behind the police hands tied so that they can never ever get into that you know that they can exist if this were a situation where an officer arrested someone based upon a warrant and later on they found out that the close office said that nafta pulled the warning out of the system or something like technical defect it did not determine that there was a lack of probable cause page thirteen or fourteen the records and i find that because is concerned about the good faith exception swallowing up requirement in this case it's not required because there is not a ruling by the circuit court that there was not probable cause simply me ask you this question judge tucker cite a case that