evidence was simply not material and raise no genuine disputes d in that this case involves multiple defendants and not because of action both federal and state and various defense reliability cannot be vouched for without independent police cooperation and investigation informant as opposed to simply a good citizen who is lying information that he's come across correct or are good citizens reliability is basically shown by the nature of the circumstance under which he comes to the information mr raynor at the time was not represented as a confidential informant and therefore obviously the magistrate had no opportunit evaluate him as such for his reliability so it doesn't really matter confidential is just a modifier it's informant status that you're concerned about i'm concerned your honor about the fact that he was represented as a confidential enforcement for and there was no independent corroboration of any evidence that he provided mr ayers information on the search warrant applications on november seventh one thousand nine where the sole reason that those applications were granted his information in mr defender woods affidavit april eleventh two thousand provided staff substantial basis probable cause was found there he is not reliable in montana law suppress and and the montana state just rejected that you know you're on the we asked for a trance like hearing and the district judge said that that was not available under montana law presumed despite that calling them as confidential informant no i am not saying this presumes your honor i've seen it could have been presumed and the judge may have been misled by that but yes you are correct in saying that when a cough and when a person is represent generates the degree of reliability so i'm trying to understand if if if a car show it's right there is a citizen who came you know we have this informant who's a good citizen who came statements it goes to determining whether or not the court was misled by the representations you know that's not my question i what i think you're arguing by innuendo that because ringer was the ten percent call in or in the business that gave him a bias or motive against mr nicol that may have animated why he cooperated with the police in the first place or you know well that is not of much of a major point all year i'm not saying not you know trying to understand what's right so he's an owner in the business that it's just fisher observed if i were the magistrate that would give me some confidence that he knows what he's talking about if the next thing that he says is i saw mr nicole in the process of cooking something and alive well any of this he had been represented as a system informant your honor possibly the judge could have looked at either way he was not represent as a citizen or former and the judge could not determine his credibility as a citizen informant the judge was represented but this is not a situation where mr ringer was a drug user or drug dealer who was working off of beef with local law enforcement by supplying information about other drug manufacturers right correct so if we're looking at this under whatever montana color we would call it a frank's analysis where's the harm where misrepresentation that materially affected the finding of probable cause the representation or honor and i hope i'm not really myself is that he was represented as a person who had given reliable then there must be an allegation a statement by the testing officer to validate this reliability because it is confidential yes all it was called was confidential and you're saying the magistrate judge therefore was precluded and not incentive to inquire into this bona fides but it seems to me under montana law the magistrate would have said well yeah you call them a confidential informant but where's the attestation of it is reliability and he would have said well your honor here's who we use this guy record and he said well then he's a citizen that we're that a different evidence whatsoever that mr nichols with involved in manufacturing controlled substances they didn't have proper ration of the other informants and they did not have corroboration of mr ringer's information the crab ration  county we've agreed amongst us to try to limit ourselves to three minutes more last however should the court have interests in the other defendants i'm happy to shorten my time ok so let me get you focused on one this bother me that hasn't been raised and under montana law seems to be have a very strict standard for searches of homes and i'm looking at the state versus require extremely specific information to justify a search warrant of the home and i don't see that the search warrant of mr nichols home there's anything close to that and the district court applied for the law under that it seems to me that's improper i mean in other words the district court shouldn't apply in montana law because that would seem to be the standard were am i wrong as well i would suggest that there were two perhaps two standards involved in reviewing the search of the home of the section one thousand nine hundred three claim against my client i think it was a proper and and the violation of the fourth amendment i think it's reasonable to use federal law to analyze that claim in terms of the search for home i think when you get to the state law claim right to privacy then why would that be the case that we normally look to that's a substantive law for things like the statute of limitations that just procedural as opposed to stuff well i guess however let me take about what's the law yeah well if we look at state law i think montana cases i mean they vary but i think repeatedly montana has said that illinois gates the federal u s supreme court case is the standard to be applied in montana i don't i think if you look at recent montana cases that repeatedly saying we follow illinois vacates in montana so mike my real answer is that's what our courts keep saying can you look at individual cases and say well both say we follow gates we're looking at the search of a home it's the totality of the circumstances and you have to make a fact specific common sense judgment that they come out in different places on that yes they do but in actually the case the most recent case that i'm aware of the details cited by actually my opponent in a supplemental cite to the court the court affirmed the search of a home on a confidential informant with fairly minimal corroboration on what i would suggest is a weaker affidavit  they comment on the the value to be placed on a law enforcement officers explanation of experience in the in the meth trade and are not meth straightened out because it was marijuana but experience with drug issues and suggested an experienced officer can present in his affidavit inferences about likely places to find contraband in our case it isn't just parkins in the affidavit and it isn't just ringer it's also officer t federal district court you know i think that in their opinion they they perhaps could have delved into state law further right in his opinion and you're right the underlying criminal case the state judge looked at the search of business and he didn't reach  confidential informant or concerned citizen who came forward that way you at least the district knows whether it's on but i think there's a criminal enterprise or somebody who's an honest  and walking off the street i think there's a disconnect here with the fact that montana law and montana are there is no such thing as a kentucky confidential informant that's not statutory that's not procedural that's not anything it's that person's identity comes out it's not significant undermines how you can be called in this part of the case you'll notice that the court says the application for a warrant did not distinguish between confidential informant citizen informant and concerned citizen and we will follow that agencies that were involved in this matter were provided to the stillwater county attorney's office based upon the information derived from goals investigative reports a staff member of the stillwater mr nichols had those repeat precursors in a preparation for compound or a mixture mixed together now that obviously is the kind of taishan that they were why would they be mixing it was he was making methamphetamine or something well they were not  in individual containers mr nickel had all kinds of had it used the state of the art lab there so the idea that the precursors had some kind of significance is taken away when you say they are not in a compound they're not a mixture they is neither is nor should consider himself an advocate for you has probable cause in this case we know from the record that the third element was involved in the preparation and probably did prepare morry with his affidavit she says she walks in that  review is that in science ok let me let me see if i can cut to the quick here if we conclude that notwithstanding your best efforts to convince us to the contrary there is probable cause for the issuance of the criminal information that she didn't mr adams as the secretary did well we're left with that but my real point being this was before probable cause by mr elements own testimony he was not an advocate at that point that's not the judicial process ok we have the brits believe that