monitoring mr caster argues that the answer is no and that his ruling on his motion to suppress a motion to dismiss should be reversed the main issue with both the district court's conclusion and the united states his position on appeal is that it proceeds in a world where cats was the last word on fourth amendment jurisprudence that is they analyzed only whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and not whether mr casto missile there was a warrant in this case so knots and similar cases about whether there needs to be a warrant really fall away there was a warrant for your your brief says your sensually well let's just disregard the warrant because it was by a judge in another state that's correct or not walk part of the fourth amendment forbids judges in one state to issue warrants that will be executed in another state no part of the fourth and they are right so you're relying on state more right now do you think the state law in the state where the warrant was issued doesn't allow the work to be implemented in another state well that's certainly true but  raises the question why state more would ever lead to the exclusion of evidence supreme court held in virginia against more than a violation of state was irrelevant dred oppression in federal court so why would it matter whether the state judge was exceeding powers under state law in issuing a multi state warrant it's also really a fourteenth amendment issue not necessarily an issue of state law that is does indiana have the right to monitor the search all the people that live in it state as well as the property that lives in a state or is it sovereignty degraded to such a point that michigan can in fact do that and that i would say there's a starting legally small amounts of jurisprudence on this not to test whether the exclusionary rule applies the government has not addressed that in their appeal brief and they certainly because he doesn't think there's any brand new rule in paul i don't believe the word the were asking for a brand new room i mean ultimately this goes back i think to what we already and lost when this is as old as pinoy versus now this goes to basic issues of fourteenth amendment federalism that is are the states sort of sovereign and you know looks themselves in the context of our federal sys i just don't see what any of this has to do with any and you're you're not making a tenth amendment argument that this warrant infringes on the rights of some other state right the argument has the argument has to be that a search justified by this war and infringes on your client's personal weapons and the difficulty with that is that that looks like it looks like you're urging us to implement some state law rule in virginia against me were says we don't use the exclusionary rule to do that i don't think that's correct at all i don't understand i mean we're not playing to any particular state code either in michigan or indiana for our supports in and basically that this warrants cannot cross state lines i would point to the fact that as the government points out a federal warrant explicitly by federal law can cross state lines such that there is a federal connection also irrelevant to the fourth amendment fourth amendment is what it is it's not added to by statutes and it's not subtracted from by statutes and in fact the supreme court has said that violation of a federal statute is not a basis for suppression of evidence a must the federal statute  you know there is the problem here where the government never before the district court argued that the warrant could be valid across state lines the only way for just doesn't matter to me anything that would make it invalid would be a princip state mall because there's no federal statute the doses and that just doesn't lead to exclusion you know we're not going to disagree with the supreme court's opinion in virginia against muar again i don't believe this is an issue of state law not issue a judgment against property that is located in state b and that's that goes to the essence of what we're arguing here which is that what and this goes to the only chinese i hate to quote from cats but the fourth amendment doesn't protect property protects  papers this is a good indeed a protection of the castors whole this is not an issue of state law i mean there's again there is no state law in either michigan or indiana which applies here and indeed the only two cases that have been cited by either parties which specifically addressed this issue are ex parte dillon and state versus jones and both of those cases expressly stand for the proposition that one state cannot a magistrate once they cannot issue a search warrant for property that is in another state this is do we have a no warrant situation or do we have an impaired one i think it was our position that we have for the purposes of indiana a no warrant situation that is that there was no effort made for a indiana seek a warrant from an indiana magistrate and i think that's particularly problematic in this case for two reasons one i think the reason that they did not do that was because of the information that they have which was  faulty the information that the michigan authorities had was that there was an independent was that mr holst who owned the car was going half way to chicago in order to get his methamphetamine it's actually that that would take him through michigan mr caster's residence is actually in the opposite direction it's closer to halfway to cleveland that is half way to chicago so i don't believe they ever thought they were going to need in india for it but the extent that they thought that they were going to the extent that they thought that this was interstate drug transportation that's why you go to the federal court and that's what you avail yourself of the federal g p s statute which expressly provides that so long as the g p s device a factual situation that doesn't exist here for instance of mr caster lived in michigan we also wouldn't have a problem here because we would have an argument about the validity of the warrant there are any number of factual scenarios which would make what the government did in this case perfectly acceptable but what they cannot do and what the government didn't even argue to the district court was that they can simply go to a michigan magistrate and seek a warrant that is valid i suppose soon nationwide if not even further that again there are only two cases in the united states that any that either party has found which addressed this issue and both fall on mr cast other side the sutil should we look at this possibly through the prism of good faith situation simply you know as in the people versus fear relocation of the government aside where it's issued in one county and it's executed in another these are two different softened states within the context of our federal system this is not a because you say sure that again i think this goes back to the argument that this is this is a fourteenth amendment issue here this is not this an issue where indiana has a sovereign right this is what all i think the ex parte dylan and ultimately state versus jones found witch even going back to can a lawyer worldwide volkswagen you know international shoe which is that each state has a sovereign right to adjudicate the laws of its state and the laws against its citizens and at the point where we allow  holland good morning your honour's and may please the court the warrant in this case was valid at a minimum for fourth amendment purposes it also i think was valid for fourteenth amendment purposes federalism purposes indiana law and michigan law but all  really matters here is that it was valid for fourth amendment purposes and the reality is that there's nothing about anything that happened here that was unreasonable under a cat's theory under a jones theory or under any fourth amendment theory of which the government is aware michigan authorities in michigan the st joseph county michigan apply for and receive a warrant to track the car in compliance with kero in compliance with thirty one seventeen in compliance with anything that they can possibly can be involved in for the moment and my point is conceded that if the car then went to the house of some other you know person in michigan and parked in their driveway and the g p s was monitored there would be no fourth amendment problems and they're equally our growth fourth amendment problems if instead what happened here is the michigan authorities sitting in michigan continue to monitor their cars it drives instead to noble county indiana and parks and mr caster's driveway there's no fourth amendment problem with any of th then the michigan authorities sitting in michigan monitoring through you know i mean the g p s information comes basically to the office phone and tells them where card as they say hey the car's a double county indiana hey the car's back in over county indiana and they don't drive the noble county indiana and without a warrant invade mr cast of his home they call the local county indiana now presumably of the state of india if there was some provision of indiana law where indiana felt that there was some big objection to michigan authorities using g p s pursu valid warrant to monitor an indiana citizen the indiana county officials would say hey we've got a big problem with this you get out of our state but instead they say thank you very much let's take this information and let's put it in a valid indiana warrant and let's go search mr caster's house because we don't drug dealers in our state so that's what happened here so there was a valid michigan warrant it was a valid indiana warrant nobody in the state of michigan or the state of indiana seems to be complaining about this so i don't think that there are any comedy of federalism issues your honor we did preserve pretty good faith argument to the extent it matters and we don't think it matters because we think that warren is clearly about you know my opponent wants to say that because a one nine hundred thirty intermediate decision in missouri and a two thousand and nine intermediate state court decision in complied with or it was valid at any rate we also think that this report was correct that if there was some issue with the warrant all that we learned from the information was that there was a charge parked in mr caster's driveway which a nosy neighbor in indiana police just to briefly address the argument that this these are the intermediate state court cases that's true it's also true to say they're the only cases that address this particular point and to address the government's argument that this ohio case the fact the most recent two thousand nine states versus jones case savers jacob i'm sorry is based primarily on ohio law it's contradictory to the actual terms words i should say of the opinion because it cites the justice holmes and silverthorne lumber versus united states for the the again this is a case where mr cast at his home the curtilage of his home has been has been invaded and has faded for nearly two hours over the course of two different searches this is not a scenario where the government came knocked on the door and left or simply encroached upon the driveway for a very brief period of time and in fact took up shop there for half an hour one time an hour and a half the second time and used that that position to track and when mr holst was in mr caster's home at a particular time