the arguments that i raise in my brief first i really want to focus the attention on the search at the candlewick apartments while i also argue that at one apartment or the end one house search was improper and in any evidences must be surprised i think focusing on candlewick will cover the arguments and i think equally applied at one alternately i don't think there's much question that the reason that the candlewick affidavit lack probable cause for search the district court didn't specifically rule on that but implied that in fact there wasn't probable cause a search instead found that a good faith exception allowed for the evidence to be admissible in court i don't believe that's fair or reasonable given the facts of this case the court knows there are two different exceptions to the good faith exception one of those being when an affidavit is barebones another one is when the officer it's objectively unreasonable for the officer to rely on the issuance of the affidavit what i'd like to point the court's attention to is we have experienced officers in this case who conducted a lengthy investigation they detail at the beginning of the affidavit how many different criminal investigations they don't have gone how much they've been involved in are caught it's investigations and that actually in my mind cuts in our favor why there is not good faith in this case these are poseurs were very well experienced knew when they submitted this affidavit to the magistrate there that they had not identified one not even one of the in this lengthy after david who actually lived at the place to be searched twelve zero three candlewick again despite months of investigation they couldn't even identify one of the suspects was living there they had no information from informants or otherwise that drugs guns or any other type of contraband would be located in twelve zero three candlewick again i think their experience and training cuts against them here they did an extensive investigation they had an opportunity to for survey these people that were involved they were involved in multiple controlled by yet they knew when they some of this affidavit than that one of the informants that they had said that  that there was a there was a statement that mr hall had keyed into the building if you look at the affidavit for the search warrant it describes this as a large three story building with multiple units and they said that mr hall had keyed into the building at one point no one observed mr hall actually key into the particular apartment i believe the person that they saw a key into the apartment was an unidentified male that may that they may have observed on another occasion but it wasn't part of any sort of control by nor did they trace that an identified black male directly from a controlled purchase back to that location so while hall was seen going into the building he was not seen going into the apartment also while they are did a lot of control in this case they were not able to conduct a single controlled by that showed a person leaving from twelve zero three and going to the control by location delivering drugs of him going back to twelve zero three that to me is it would have been a clear tie to the these various locations when you tried to retain them to be confusing and what i have written down things to it to arabic it conflicts that it probably would need some be mr have all and then after that there were various parking lot exchanges that would be consistent with drug activity and i wrong about that or am i right about that there was a there was i believe one allegation that paul's car was seen leaving the candlewick apartment complex no one said that the car that he came out of even building thr never the less i mean there is evidence that ha drove from there to edwin and then drove to a place with  where they gauge connectivity that would be consistent with drug exchanges in a parking lot it's true it's part of the reason why it's part of the reason why i think candlewick is the stronger bit to arguments between kendall what can i do and because when they went and when it was after that after and when that they then went to another parking lot where the police observed activity that they thought may have been controlled substance purchases again they don't actually see substances exchanged hands what they saw what i see of our activity consistent with the sale of drugs that's correct so let's go back to how the police are out there testing this subject that the substance it's big handle when they're doing surveillance they never asked their verify that what they're seeing is in fact drugs they do in surveillance are not interesting or residence before they have done to two individuals that goal and go to the place where the court described as possible drug suspicion or is it curious to say that with respect to candlewick and  when there was there were various incidents where were driving from one or the other to one or the other to what were believed to be drug bottles i think that it's it's fair to say they were driving but the reason why the affidavit is really misleading is that all they have the most of the information and candlewick is things that occur in the parking lot somebody could ducting surveillance who would they saw all they could see is that right i don't know i don't know what the i don't know if they size it up private complex right and the door of the apartment is not that real briefly in that's possible except that they were able to survey once into the building which implies they could have done other times and yet they never see any of these particular suspects hall  jenkins leaving the building for any of these i'm sorry leaving the apartment not the building because it's important this is a multi unit apartment complex in one of any of them leaving that particular apartment that's where the fourth amendment protection is not in the building not on the cars please the court my name is scott graham here on behalf of mr howell with the court's permission i would reserve three minutes for i want to dive right into what i think is the key issue for mr holloway i would concede to the court that the affidavits that were filed in this matter most likely demonstrate probable cause to believe that mr howell was involved in some illegal activity that the activity occurred outside the two residences in question and the issue is whether or not there is a sufficient nexus between that and probable cause to believe that drugs would be found within those residents inside that's you know getting right at the point recognizing that now we're talking about an older a lot of locations but now we're talking about daury drive and dragonflies so the question becomes whether or not an affidavit that may well established probable cause to show someone was involved outside the apartment  whether that affidavit demonstrates that there is reason to believe that there are drugs in the apartment we think not we think that the cases that have been cited b mr holland by the government do not establish a clear law for the proposition that merely because you are involved in a drug transaction a low level street by street sale outside the part that drugs will be found inside the apartment i mean that's the we've got to take that on in this case and if if mr howe cannot persuade the court that that there is not a sufficient nexus then i certainly recognize that he has a problem in regard to the searches of these of these two apartments the question here is one of the questions is did anyone ever see a sale or a controlled by from dory drive or dragonflies that's a key very very crucial issue the answer is no has anyone ever alleged that the answer is no has anyone ever alleged that there was a quantity of drugs found on mr holler with mr hall that water is so large after leaving one of these locations directly or indirectly that you would think there would be more back in the park the answer is no so what we have is in fact a situation here where we have street level business occurring and i guess an inference that that if it happens the stash if you will must be back in one of the residences he lives it dorry to correct correct so don't we have this case united states versus worry him so that suggests that it's reasonable for people to infer that in that case was about was about arms but could also be about drugs that dealers keep their drugs in their apartments well the answer just we we have that case but the oh i'm having trouble you have a problem the problem is i think in williams that more was observed in the in the apartment than was when nothing was ever observed was ever observed here and i also think that in regard to the distinction about street level drugs that the items are so small that they could be stored anywhere and not necessarily in a residence i guess that's my my i think my way to distinguish to distinguish that case i also would note that you know we've relied on we've relied on higgens now he can say in higgins the search was upheld based upon good faith by we think that the that the analysis regarding probable cause applies here and we think that case is equally strong in supporting us as is williams in supporting a contrary position and we think of course the good faith doesn't apply here as opposed to higgins in part because that was a two thousand and nine case certainly that the knowledge about the law and knowledge about what is appropriate for officers is different in this day and age you're in two thousand and fifteen you're actually talking a lot of search here that just about exactly three years old in two thousand fifteen in this case in the current case so we think that there is a there's an issue here getting right to the point judge larson that you identify we think that there is an issue here that suggests that possession of street level drug amount had a lot more information about tori and about your client your honor i would suggest that each one of those pieces is simply inadequate to to get the government where it needs to go where the officer is where they need to go again he he lived there but that doesn't mean that a street level amount would be stored there there if there were call records that i can see  are were involved in this case i don't think those call records necessarily establish when you say call records are you talking about the g p s tracking to that address on the phone they're not talking about  could just make one one one point again knowing that there is other things showing that mr howell is there does that mean that there would be drugs there that's that's the question you have your  magistrate's decisions for all of these probably cause search warrants with a common sense is the ongoing nature of the drug traffic in here by mr howe in the first part in two thousand and fourteen which was later joined by mr jenkins the court mentioned there were multiple control by as there were five in two thousand and fourteen and six in two thousand and fifteen leading up to them the court never noted several issues about the surveillance and i'd like to respond to some of the focus the defense brought to their oral argument specifically with regard to mr jenkins for candlewick and i think by enlarging forward is important that it's not only drugs that these agents are looking for and asking the magistrate court in kalamazoo for the right to go find evidence of this drug trafficking especially in a case where you have a long term and different agendas conceded it was an extensive investigation the reason the investigation was extensive is because the drug trafficking activity was ongoing there were multiple controlled buys over two months in two thousand and fifteen and from february to april of two thought i'm sorry february to april of two thousand and fifteen and two months in two thousand and fourteen from october through december this activity being ongoing colors a great deal of how any judge has to look at the cause that's submitted in these warrants and it's detailed the court mentioned the g p s information from mr howard's phone the ghost phone and what's in court most important about this drug trafficking from these group of individuals the phones are very important what do they share they don't share one location where they're dealing drugs out of a house through the keyhole or opening a door and that's where the drugs come from conceited which if that were the probable cause that we had here with one location would be very clear we wouldn't be arguing these issues what these defendants were doing was working at a different locations using multiple locations using multiple phones but the phones were the tie to how they shared the business fostered their customer base and got drugs on the street the extensive investigation that went on here worked backwards from the phone and the surveillance for what the officers could see in order to determine what locations might be relevant and might have evidence in terms of those records in terms of the tools of the drug trade not just the stash as the defendant how raised in terms of his oral argument it's not just the stash of drugs that is proof of the amount of drug dealing here there's a great deal more and for these individuals with the ongoing activity it's the record of their activity and that record can also be found in those cell phones numerous numbers of which were found as a result of these ones that's no way to backdoor the cause of these warrants from what is found but that's exactly what the investigators  looking for to pace their activity over time they are dealing user amounts on the street but they have larger amounts and they have ongoing activity specifically the court asked mr jackson's attorney about candlewick in terms of the tie to that i want to address some of those because there are a great deal of facts in these in these affidavits each one of them from eight to eleven pages long much of which has to do with the experience of the officers but a great deal of which has to do the actual facts on the ground of their investigation and for candlewick the officers observed that hall lived there and determined it based upon their observations from february of two thousand and fifteen up through april second of two thousand and fifteen where they determined that he left kalamazoo and went to benton harbor now they first observed him in the proximity of the candlewick apartment into that in february on the twenty third with true controlled purchases where mr hall was going back to the building it's very important that as the defense raised on that day they didn't see hall key into his apartment but later on on march fourth of two thousand and fifteen and this is on page six of the affidavit for the candle department officer hamm did observe the driver of the same car always using the court made an important observation and that is on surveillance you are not going to have perfect knowledge of everything that happens as you're moving in traveling with individuals who are concededly trying to conceal their activity from law enforcement that's one of the reasons they use changing phones they use multiple locations they use multiple dealers as they work in concert mr hall is driving from one place to another he doesn't deal in the parking lot at his apartment complex and candlewick he drives to another parking lot in another part of their apartment complex for a quick trade and on that date march fourth  two thousand and fifteen after him saw the driver of the same car he could not say that it was henri paul in that day because when he saw that driver key into the twelve o three apartment that same toyota yaris was repeatedly asserted in the allegations of the affidavit as used by mr hall and mr holocene doing deals later on and seen traveling from candlewick to the edward apartment where mr jenkins was eventually identified as the person coming out importantly for the other addresses for drag fly which was mr howells second residence the two thousand and fifteen residence there was a deal that mr howard conducted on april sixth where he left a dragon fly and went to the controlled purchase came back to dragon fly immediately afterward in the light of all his extensive drug trafficking activity dating back to the previous year that is clear cut probable cause for that address the same thing is true for everyone five twenty edwin address where mr jenkins did a deal on april sixth of two thousand fifteen just the day before they applied for these warrants candlewick was mr hall's address and he left that address as we understood from a communication from mr howell in the allegations this was given to the magistrate court mr how left that address on candlewick and went to benton harbor on april the second but still is activity was ongoing up to that point and it's important that mr howell is communicating the giovanni's going out of town but i can handle you while you're gone what's important here is that the organization and the conspiracy is ongoing they're still serving their customers they're still using the tools of their trade and those tools can still be found evidence of those tools there is good cause to believe will be found in each one of these residences at the time that they're doing it doing the investigation as a whole now so i apologize i'd like to interrupt and ask you about a different issue in the case about the the search of the rental car that mr jenkins is challenging is there anything in the record  where jenkins asserted he had a puzzle sorel interest in the car there's not your honor and i think that's very important because if this court's jurisprudence on rental cars situations and the bird case which is the supreme court now which we know nor brief is well the woman who rented the car her name is on the rental information she is the same woman who rented the five twenty one address where mr jenkins  activity that we were describing was going going but mr jenkins did not put any information on the record about his ability or his right to use that car there was nothing in the contract that allowed for any other driver or for particularly mr jenkins he didn't advance any of that information ok thank you that aspect of the investigation is also important your honor i would say that there was good cause for that car based upon the information that was found in these leads apartment just before that and they submitted the investigators in august of two thousand and fifteen submitted  search warrant the court scene consistent with that car there was clear consent from miss lee who did not know mr jenkins knew him by a nickname as introduced through mr hall but did not allow him into her home there's clear that mr jenkins did not preserve any right to his to his suitcase which he left there which was found in the home and that's where another hundred eighty grams of heroin was found and mr jackson state id in immediate proximity to the budget run a car key to the car the court just mentioned affidavits and what the investigators danced and i think the magistrate judge had good cause to prove was that these locations were in direct nexus or in proximity to this act ongoing activity over a course of time the best indication of that is the one the court pointed out with regard to the initial door drive address the g p s information for the phone which is the epicenter of not only investigation but the trade that these individuals in are engaging in we didn't have the same g p s information in the subsequent warrants in two thousand and fifteen but there's a great deal of surveillance which ties those locations to the individual defendants activity that was ongoing up til the day before the application for the search warrants your honour's if the court has no further questions for the government at this time i will rest on our brief and submission and thank the court thank you briefly on the candlewick search unlike in williams where the informant said that the person that they suspect that stored narcotics and or other items in the home there was none of that in this case second the only identified possible suspect who was seen going in and out of the building not in or not of the a perforated which is the privacy protected area but in and out of the building was hall and at the time of the search the people readily concede that hole was no longer in kalamazoo we don't have any ties to anybody being in candlewick who's a suspect in this case in any way at the time of the search that's the bottom line and i don't believe there was sufficient allegations to justify the admission of the evidence regarding the ford fusion i readily concede that no evidence was presented at the hearing regarding the his particular standing however there was evidence asserted in the affidavit tying justin jenkins to the rental car in multiple ways that had sufficiently in my mind showed a possessory interest so for instance if i'm driving somebody else's rental car why it may be illegal for me to drive it that doesn't mean that while i'm driving it i don't have a privacy interest in it while i'm in the car bottom line i'm in a car it's my driving on my own i see a lot of privacy interest in it regardless even if the car was stolen you still have a privacy interest in the vehicle itself  while you're driving it and in the rental car could have a privacy and well car that is that they stole give me an example what if what if he has a bag in the back of a car and the police search that and then they go into the bank what i'm saying is criminal activity doesn't waive privacy interests they just don't that's never been the case here because you've committed a crime you're therefore have on you've waived any and all privacy interests i mean an extreme example i don't think i need to do that in this case because in the affidavit itself it says that justin jenkins is associated with he who rented it she's one of his girlfriends dog he was found in the home that that went to the car there was suppose an identification of mr jenkins being the person who was in the home that's clearly not the information that he was the one have only one point to make directional arson i don't think i was as detailed and thorough and distinguishing williams i apologize for that in williams the court found that these guns could be the nature of the guns the nature of the defended circumstances cetera showed that they could only be held in two different locations a car a residence they could own they had to be the court determined had to be one place or the other and i just don't think that's the same for again a street level not because of size because of the i mean weapons storing weapons or are different than that i think got the small amounts with that most of our questions thank you very much we appreciate the arguments all of you given they were consider the case carefully