please the court in the government's case is centered around probable cause and as you circumstances and order for the court to find that at the at the suppression hearing indicate that that's not what the officers believe was at the time the only common testified that she did not believe my client all of that changed as they saw the defendant come out and wait for his buyer to iraq i think it's true that the circumstances in debbie cummins mind changed when he saw my hearing that according to the c s the c s said he called me and told me to come over in fifteen minutes that call was never actually corroborated by that is by the deputy nor was it recorded nor was it overheard by anyone you think your drugs on him when he exited the house and he didn't say yes or here's the reasons why i say yes he said it was a possibility and when asked why he exited the vehicle after that time before any c s ever showed up he said i just totality of circumstances they had enough evidence to suggest that he had drugs on his person  environment and produce drugs to the informant i mean to the to the undercover detectives at the time and what the court ruled in if you know was that the officers had probable cause to believe that drugs were in the home and on the supplier probable cause and something that would justify entry into the hall i don't think that's the law i think that it i still think it's a totality let circumstances test but what's interesting is that every single and so while i don't think it's required i think it's a really good indicator of probable cause and he says where they have not established the nexus in warrants those warrants have been suppressed the description of mr brown which i mean normally of a house where lots of facts and circumstances corroborated that drugs were actually in the car and they did i guess the car i mean my understanding of the case is that the car was parked on his street and they actually did the home and the drugs and it wouldn't support and it didn't support probable cause in the war and so i think that the nexus requirement is something that's really important for the court to consider was was there evidence not known to be officers that this defendant was probably dealing in drugs yes and i would i would say that a person's status or suspicion as a drug dealer doesn't satisfy the requirement that for probable cause for a nexus that there were drugs and persons home and that information came from the c s and was beyond right well yes it's a little bit confusing because the the confidential source there are two confidential mr cruz's address or where he lived if you look at the supplemental reports which are part of the record  well let me put it this way they wanted trees to believe that there was going to be an exchange but there was never actually a plan for there to be an exchange does that make sense it can be inferred but i think it requires the inference and i think it requires the assumption and i think that's one of the problems any walking outside of your home is also long full contact and with out more work without him carrying a bag without him having his hands in his pockets without him sort of showing that he was actually about to exchange it in a journey seems i don't think it's enough and i think  honestly think that this is a situation where the deputies didn't allow the investigation to be completed so that they can actually develop probable cause and let me just could i just ask you this is more of a technical question but are you challenging the officers probable cause to enter mr cruz's home to arrest or probable cause to enter the home to search but does that does it make any difference long as they have one or the i would say both i would they are challenging both but does it make any difference which one it is so i mean assuming there is probable cause for one or the other to that does  make any difference that that it's arrest or search you know because i think the standard is probably the same from the and it's all right i'd like to reserve my remaining time thank you thank you morning your honour's may it please the court tiffany walters for the united states the officers entry into chris's home was supported by probable cause and as an existent circumstances on two grounds both on the hot pursuit doctrine and and that's that's not the only factor here in this case and perhaps that standing alone would not be probable cause but here the officers had specific st hand information from two different sources which  corroborated each other and were cooperated by detective cop months prior knowledge of crews the st confidential source was able to identify his photo was able to identify the intersection of his residence describes vehicles factors that  had the information provided by the confidential informant which consisted of personal knowledge of drug transactions the informant actually showed the officers text messages documenting prior drug transactions between himself and cruz and the officers were able to listen in on a phone call in which the confidential informant set up the arranged by with cruise for later that day defendant's counsel is focusing on whether or not the nd call was recorded but there's no requirement that each call on the steps to recorded this court has recognized and number of cases involving these a rancher controlled by and that the facts play out a little differently in each case and the question is not whether  the particular range transaction in this case meets some objective standard that all transactions must me the question is whether looking at all the facts the totality of the circumstances that we have here whether there was probable cause to believe that cru gaijin in drug trafficking also the focus on whether or not there is probable cause to search the home is beside the point here we're focused solely on whether or not there's probable cause to believe he's engaged in drug trafficking because the officers weren't looking to get a search warrant of the home they would not have entered the home but for cruise's decision to flee in there and they were there and she was only necessitated by those accident circumstances so whether or not they thought that there would be drugs in the home  is decide the point also circumstances changed when they gained additional information by observing crews exit the home detective cotman had originally thought that perhaps cruz would go to a stash house to pick up the supply for the transaction or that someone might drop something off but once he was at the location observing he saw a cruise come out of the home come out to the street at the appointed time the appointed place and look around at that point it's reasonable for him to believe that yes the drugs on that because none of these other alternatives have occurred there hasn't been someone has brought the drugs to him he hasn't gone to another location all of this evolving information gives rise to probable cause to believe that c at this point it was reasonable i think for officers to believe especially once he started running that he had drugs on his person that he wanted to dispose of stand but at the time he emerges from the house to believe that there'd be destruction of evidence yes under that hong but both of these doctrines are sufficient and of themselves so well under the image destruction of evidence it's necessary to believe that he has drugs honest person that he's going into the house to destroy under hot pursuit we don't need that fact what we need is probable cause to believe he's engaged in criminal activity probably costs are rising arrests and that there's a chase that he flees from officers who are attempting to detain him and  sources told him that he's going to meet with him in fifteen minutes and then he comes out walks all the way out past this gate and starts looking around engaging in behavior that looks like he's about to engage in a drug transaction  up this arrangement and he's taken a step towards completing that transaction the only reason that well the officers didn't intend that transaction to be complete but he thinks from his perspective that he's going to a drug buy and he's walking out of his house to to where courts of wildly recognize that there's ample means to destroy of evidence like like drugs because they're afraid that individuals are going to flush them down the toilet or dispose of in some ways which is exactly what was happening here destruction of evidence occurring or likely and i mean it's not also that it's actually occurred there's no requirement that the officers wait until they actually hear the sound of flushing toilets here we have a chase we have someone who's running into the home clearly this is a location where officers if they want to arrest him can certainly find him later there's no reason to go hide in the home but for to destroy evidence we also know that the crews here and had prior prior interactions with detective cotman that the officers identified themselves and told him to stop and he ignored that command that lawful command and instead ran into the home and created an accident to they offered chris that option after they apprehended him they took him to the couch they sat him down and they said we can get a search warrant or you can consent and that would have been a viable option how do you not consented they could have gone and gotten a search warrant at that point they had seen the methamphetamine in the toilet given all the other circumstances at that point there is clearly probable cause to search the home but cruz elected to  was not i would say it's not essential but in this case there was no the initial entry with a very limited search which just was essentially a search for cruise's person to apprehend him to halt the destruction of evidence that all the officers did and then they mediately took him to the couch gave him or had their warnings and then he proceeded to consent to further search of the home bathroom they should have stopped at that point and i think that any consent at that point passed that was irrelevant because of wants to but it also is in circumstances also has to be supported by clearly defined in found a certain circumstances that officers have actually been able to observe or see signs of destruction of evidence for example they see people reaching into their pockets they hear flashing i haven't spent a lot of time on this and i don't want to spend a lot of time on it but it's an interesting point is attend to serious crime i mean one of the things that asians he has to look like to you is a serious crime and yet they were if you was only in the attempt stage arguably arguably if he's in the attempt stage and they don't have probable cause to believe that he's about cindy's in a drug transaction or that he has drugs on his person is that a serious crime for purposes of and i think that's something that the court could spend some time considering i wanted to say sue in united states verses balance well the facts are different this is a card case but