determined with reasonable certainty which property is intended to be searched in this case we have a physical description of the property that matched one building and smelled a very evident smell of marijuana coming from work on the day of the search so there is no the officers had no question in their mind regarding which building was intended to be searched and the description of the property in the born in the body the word clearly established that the building intended to be searched was the ten two story house in the corner of greeley and test they even or are you talking to the individuals in the house at the time the one thousand two was discovered so by the time the one that dispersed between eight twenty seven one thousand to this cover it was already way to play right yeah well i know carton bank stuff as far as this record shows there's no contraband discovered as far as when because there's no testimony from the officers conducting the search as to whether they saw something with the doors open or it worked out that no test when you were guarding how the search was conducted because this was all sort of based soley upon the discrepancy between a twenty seven and one and this type of discrepancy is not sufficient to throw out this war of words to say that the police officers are not acting in good faith searched the discrepancy between one or two partners was  the description was sufficient because of the physical description of the property and because the officers conducting the search were the ones that had applied for the war so  think it is significant that the that the officers knew he attended probably the property was properly described accurately described can describe all one  scription of the house at this is not say grounds for throwing out the search and i think this in this case the police officers were acting in reasonable put faith reli that's what we have here is have discovered after the swiss war namely the evidence that the building has one or two rather than eight to seven officer that apply for the war said he talked to the two officers with field who told him that they have smoked marijuana at this location he checked the online tax records official so this is not a case where the police officers knew beforehand that the work was invalid or that they were they had included in the wrong information in the search so i submit that either number of the house not was it that was the only discrepancy found that said that in a in a large police in a large metropolitan area police officers in this situation might have called the says these after there were a small department that knew that this was the building to be searched they didn't bother to make the call as it is sort of a one of the references he makes in as you're approaching the podium right i noted this was case number four seventeen zero one two one people ross i should have also indicated that it to spend the majority of my time attempting to address arguments that counsel brought up this afternoon tea party read creeps first off i believe the first question from your honor was regarding whether or not there would have been an obligation by the police officers upon discovering to discrepancies in the search warrant to see so much so and so to speak hold back and check with the judge who issued the warrant and justice turner are to indicated that  there was no contraband found at that time i also just want to point out your honour's that the case laws specifically the rabbinic case points out that this this this question about whether or not it would have been too late and that would have been the words of counsel over here to to pull back because essentially of the this the search one had already been in effect best that's the state's burden to to establish that there were exigent circumstances that would require some evidence that he had a reasonable belief that that was going to happen in this case certainly we don't have anything like that we have testimony from sergeant russell that he observed a discrepancy in the tunnel to on the front of the house at the o saying police police get out there knocking on announcing which suggests that they're still standing outside of they're telling someone to get out so again we don't even have evidence that they were inside that house yet much less in the middle of searching a house where apparently if found evidence contraband on the first floor in the basement on the second floor that led to over one hundred plants things ok did so is there any evidence that these plants could have been destroyed flushed down the toilet that all your honors so i would suggest again that the notion that it was quote unquote too late and we have an officer who admitted that he had a radio that you could use a gentleman we've got a problem here let's call someone and i would also point out that one of the cases cited by the state the palace case was one in which that's precisely what the police did have certain infirmity in the warrant and they said let's go out and call the state's attorney and see what they want to do and the judge then determine well i think that you're close enough you can proceed and that's the way it ought to be because really the way that the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures works is that it's not the police officers judgment call to determine you know what it's good enough we're fine it's up to the neutral and detached magistrate to make that discrepancy between what was on the warning and what was actually the address was not sufficient i bet it was this is a miner's discrepancy i would first of all i'd suggest that discrepancy in this case a bar is more realize that there was a problem until the art kicked down the door and realized that there were actually two apartments on the first floor so there's no way the can even known that there were discrepancy until the are to made a breach whereas in this case the tenant two is in plain sight for all  standing in the street without the use of any technological advances or special police equipment anyone would have known that the address on this house was tenants you in the palace case it was the correct address number it was a wrong street name but this but the name that was on the address i'm sorry on the warrant was a non existent actress so it's pretty clear that the police could figure it out well this isn't even real address let's go to the one where it's you know let's go to the one that we can find in reynolds on the card and again it was a four trailer it down the the third so that's that's i would say suggest a more minor discrepancy in kill for it was a crush really just at the wrong city but there was no way that they could have been crystal late because that was forty five miles away so and so on and so forth your honour's my point is that we have a situation here where the detective russell in his sworn affidavit indicated that there would be a house that we're going to search that has a number ski seventeen affixed to the front that is literally in the language just in there it's not just that the average speed seventeen which really said you're going to see the numbers the seventeen on the front of the house and no point in the record does it show that there was ever a house in the in the vicinity that had the numbers of the seventeen on the front in fact not only same officers who can develop the information to taint the warrant actually serving the warrant and it does seem that they were going to make clear on where they were going and where they were supposed to se second floor to the left even though that the apartment was incorrectly was it was partly indian or c and it should have been d now what happened was the officers did actually want to execute the warrant so you have different officers we do but at the end of the day i don't have to call my guys up because i know which house we need to search and he may have that judgment call and again it's not i think of the day when you look at if you know it's not about that you're right it's about the fact that when there is a remedy discovered prior to the execution of a warrant it's incumbent upon the police to let a neutral in the patch magistrate handle the business of deciding yeah you can go ahead and do that so it's a really the fact and you know frankly they got the right house right in every single one of the situations they got the right house otherwise there wouldn't be a court case because there's no evidence but again an interview he was right well they didn't get this house one chance the search warrant a complaint affidavi single family ten to store dwelling located on the east side of north korean screen with the cash barn to the north of it so how many other five ten two story homes on the east side a real north korea but again i think that when you look at the the way in which this investigation unfolded also i think it's problematic because even the way in which the police determine that the target residence was going to be tended to be used just not involves policing that be allegedly east of town to chestnut and the people who live to the north of us are northeast of town to east chestnut so the other thing that is brought up by the state that we haven't really addressed it is this whole good faith exception doctrine and one of the reasons why this doctrine does not apply in this case well there's two of them the first one being the better one of the exceptions that the fourth district noted in the taylor case i believe this is is that is when the the any one of those officers is literally take their eyes and look at the front of the house to determine that yet this was handed to each chest not on a house that's facing chestnut the front is facing chestnut and there's number ten with you right there and none of them do that and then there's this whole business for the cannabis where do you just assume that it would have to be coming from this house because the sheriff knows the other people and there's no way that people reporting suspicious behavior could possibly on their own you go in kind of this and so that that russell admitted that bill that information actually pertains to the seventeen which really which is the home to the north of town to use chestnut being that the issuing judge was provided incorrect information that you had to at least partially rely upon to grant the warrant in the first place and the only reason why the police ended up putting that correct information on there is because they didn't bother to literally use your eyeballs to look at the front of the house which would have immediately ruled out that that house was the seventeen that but to continue i just want to have a couple more points that i wanted to touch base on and i while i have time this wasn't really addressed by the state but there's this there's this settled that it would have been proper for the state at the trial level to challenge or to raise the issue of standing at the motion to reconsider it even though they didn't raise it at the motion to suppress and that was an event being the reason why the trial judge essentially rejected that that objection by the state but i also want to point out that at the hearing on the motion to reconsider the counsel for mr schieffer at the time  requested leave to present evidence by way of his client's testimony to establish standing at the motion to reconsider and the trial judge at the time suit that well since i'm denying the state's request for  opportunity to reap objective standing at this time because you didn't raise that emotions press i'm going to also deny you the opportunity to present evidence and that was made pretty clear that you know mr grunow at the time made a couple different requests to ask for leave to have his client testify briefly as to standing and so mice my thought is that your honors certainly if it were to be sent down and we manage just on the issue of standing we know that hopefully mr schrieber would be given the opportunity to to testify as to standing because he certainly tried to do so at the trial level but was prevented from doing that but i think also the court asked for it a couple different things he said the number one that ryan schriefer was part of this alcee that owned the home that was in question and secondly that mr schriever ad actually taken rent from the codefendant mr ross and up to a lot and to have access to the home position on standing are you saying that you're you're acknowledging that it was error on the part of the trial court to deny the state the ability to raise the issue and it in its motion to reconsider i believe that this i  frankly but but but what i'm trying to raise your honor is that at the end of the day i believe that it really amounts to nothing more than a harmless error because we know that mr schieffer does sex and even just based on the record that's that the re d part of the record on appeal now the state has cited a couple cases which suggest that it's not it's not appropriate for the court to consider the prelim hearing testimony because it wasn't made part of the trial record but first of all i think we can distinguish because in that situation we're talking about the defendant trying to bring in testimony from the witness at the prelim hearing that was meant to contradict that same witness's testimony at the trial to make it seem like they were being inconsistent here we have what would be uncontroverted evidence that the state itself produced at appealing hearing in order to not only provide standing but really satisfy its theory of the case which is that mr shrimper is an accomplice based on accountability and so for them to even be able to relationship to what happens when the police actually discover a defect in the warrant all the other case the watson case to mccarty and reynolds and kill for all those have to do with situations where the police never even knew there was a problem with the warning till after the fact but in their buno we see that very analogous situation where the police had an opportunity to do the right thing and contact a neutral the past magistrate and they didn't do that in this case i also want to point out that  and this case the problem with the warrant was readily available and appearance anybody would have been standing in front of the house and i want to also just want to find that the powerless case instructed because the police did do the right thing they stopped the proceedings they contacted the judge and the judge essentially said you can proceed forth and that easily could have been the case in this situation but that's not what we chose to do and i think that's where they failed thank you thank you any and intervene or the police officers that were conducting search discovered the discrepancy between this and the deed before they made the search they didn't know which place search so they call the other officer who provided the information he says search see it was those circuses where the officers conducting the search were not certain those cells which place to search search the apartment see because the information the court phone with the information relied upon to say that this sale took place on the left side of the stairs was not sufficient or invalid that with really informing the state's apartment deed that is where the probable cause is located that is completely different than this particular situation where the officers were the ones that developed the information we're told as justice or if justice is noted they were told to go to a channel house ten two of the property was valid because the discrepancy was not discovered prior to the surface was discovered at the time the search was started and it had taken twenty eight seventeen person one thousand two and that information was not known at the torino the war was requested and was not discovered until after the war was issue was incorrect in this terminations either based upon the pace of the war or upon the police officers a reasonable reliance or good faith reliance upon that w