please the court my name is mark hall i represent appellant bennett and first i'd like to apologize i am the owner of the essendon cell phone that rang earlier in court and i had stepped out of the court room just went r origin but rather extensive information which chandler claims was displayed somehow by the g p s machinery and in other words we're not arguing about question had been whether he crossed the border and the only evidence that the agent had was tire tracks taking him off the ocean on land and the only evidence he had where there's a tire tracks be permissible for the ag to testify about his observations of that well i actually think that it made me agnes of all but i think that that's a far cry from data that is produced by a machine is a story and it's produced by this particular machine and this year then it had no access to it and it just does not come within the name tag or point of origin information in the read back to them and you know shortly there after they returned their verdict it was information that supported the government's theory that mr bennett was important in marijuana meaning that he was bringing it from mexico and it was the only information other than some questionable statement that mr going to cross the border and it was information in support of why he officer chamar now part of what was admitted into the trial was a statement about chandler from chandler testimony from chandler that didn't he thought it was strange that then it would go to mexico to go and that is a brief statement by chamar not the details the boat was in mexico off of you know rosarito and then travel to the the channel islands which are within mexican waters and then data from the g p s it's not even like it printed anything on the screen i don't know if you can print it because i don't know these machines you know which is part of the problem we have nothing from the g p s we just had chamas recollection of what he saw which gave him the within admission under the best evidence rule here we have none of that none of that and we have a piece of evidence which was critical to the government which was argued in closing and which was heavily relied on by the jury as evidenced by the question in the return of the verdicts after seeing them on your honor so i would use quickly like to respond to the gun machine cases that government provided me with this morning on the waiver force that was set up that day to interject smugglers how avar what we have in this case is a fourth amendment attack on the search and the government's response which i did find argument underhill montes for that in my that is fine and they also addressed the functional equivalent of the border arguments and then they go on to say that the boat was properly properly searched  device that depends on relay from satellites and if it's programmed in correctly can provide false presumably since it was programmed incorrectly somebody programmed some human being programmed it so that it would reflect on circumstantial evidence that that boat was in mexico at some point prior in that day and you know it doesn't really have to say that the count was on the boat that day just like that boat was in mexico based upon the coordinates that were  automatically in the g p s let me move on if unless the court has more questions on that particular area with respect to the statements that came in i just want to point out to the court the statement that that it was strange but then it would go to mexico to dive is not actually a correct recounting of the testimony what was said was i thought it unusual that a person would go diving by themselves in mexico there was the diving statement right as the other evidence that he was in mexico you know you could and there's other evidence in form of a statement that he that he was in mexico that never came out at trial however because the government didn't feel the need to because the and district court proceedings the how it never made a motion to suppress the evidence based upon the initial stop it never did you never made that motion in fact i think if happened i can tell you that there is a motion can tell you that the government filed a motion to preserve evidence which is at the clerk's record at eleven and thirteen and on each find of that motion the government says that it will evidence to which the defendant is entitled under the rules now here's where i'm going to talk about things that i'm not positive that i believe that the government at some point prior to trial got rid of the boat and the g