clothes and identification in the same sentence your honor i understand from the record that he asked he says to the court i asked for clothing and where identification to be found and then in the next sentence evidence of you who you are and he's asking specifically for the defendant to show him where the officer can seize evidence to convict him of the crime is being arrested for that you're not that may be a problem but out the pennsylvania concealed carry permit or the pennsylvania firearms permit gone to the stairs and shouted down mr rivera the dia where is the gun where is the gun in the bedroom that was the interrogation following the awful search  without a warning to which mr rivera to respond that it was in a closet and then it and toss it at him brought up stairs to stand three or four feet outside the door point out where the key was to the fire safe box that the gun was located in a top shelf the closet i agree with you i'm speaking only for myself that there had to be justification for opening the wallet yes ron and they suggested two things they said that we were interested in opening a while  not probable cause there's no probable cause to believe that a lot you don't know anything else about is going to reveal nation of birth but the other thing they say is we had an arrest warrant and we had a lot of evidence that we had put before a judge and said this is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed yes ron and when we got there  were entitle to confirm that this person was the person that committed the crime that the court found probable cause to believe had occurred you're  that isn't the purpose of opening it isn't that probable cause to isn't there probable cause to believe that finding a dentist occasion of somebody under those circumstances is is evidence of a crime your honor there may well be probable cause enough to support a seizure of the wallet and we would not argue here that the seizure of the wallet was unlawful but even that fullest measure of probable cause that items of evidence are you value may be contained with any private container as the supreme court said in horten against california but not eleven cannot allow a search of a private space there must be a warrant or w that's true so i thought i may be wrong but i thought ok good point i thought and it wasn't clear to me in the record whether it was like an illegal reactionary having previously been deported that would be a warrant right without iraq and it was the record it just says you'll see your honor that the immigration questionnaire it specified is not applicable to a question concerning when mr verify the a previously entered the united states this was not an illegal reentry this was an initial entry without authorization now the warrant that absolutely but that is immaterial to the question of whether he could have open the was that point and searched that may have provided the fullest measure of probable cause for him to see that isolated to preserve it for later examination for evidence but not  acquirement and there was none such exception here authorization for him to open the wallet look inside of it and finding common aging evidence no matter how much he believed that incriminating of his contained with search affect the privacy interests in arizona against sex those two interest work are expensive because if the officer had probable cause to lift up the turntable to take it with him he had probable cause to turn it over and see the serial area he had authorization up to see the serial  videotapes they believe these boxes that contain illicit pornographic videotapes that there's a box instead they contain illicit pornographic videotapes nonetheless when the asians opened those boxes and exhibited the movies absent a warrant and without any exception requirement they violated the owners the owner of those boxes for them and privacy interests apart entirely from his possessory interest protected by the fourth and them they had the container in their possession there was no exigen its contents were not in plain view until exhibited there was no need to protect the officer safety and even have that he has a right to get open the law and he have a right to seize the wallet gone before the district court i would argue that no he did not because the government failed reduce evidence establishing probable cause that the wallet contained evidence i'd also point out that the wallet itself was clearly not considered evidence as the agents left it behind even you're not arguing that on appeal now your honor i think that we don't need to reach that question because you're conceding that for purposes of this appeal it would have been the seizure they could have seized it but then they would have had to get a warrant  the gun permit which started this whole chain of events was inevitable they even tried to introduce evidence concerning inevitable discovery of the gun and omitted any evidence concerning united little discovery  gun permit to search for the gun permit was lawful which the court sort of glosses over it doesn't really examine whether this was a search which is as if the while it was examined it goes first to the unwarned confession as to the location of the gun and says that the following confession was not painted by the unworn confession because then there was the gun and because there is no need to suppress physical evidence for a recovered following onwards confession that the later confession to the possession of the gun and everything that followed from it was fine if you go back to the previous step and correctly find that the search of the wallet was unlawful then there is nothing whatsoever to break the chain of causation between that illegal search and everything discovered from that point on the permit the gun the initial on one confession and the subsequent confession in right if there was easier was legal if you c in knowing what's there so he can say later i had three hundred dollars in that wallet when you gave it back to me when i was released before i was deported it was going to hundred dollars and there were no dollars in there and you've stolen three hundred dollars from me or i world that once you say they could take it and they could bring it down to the police station just so happens i just can't see them what do you want to help your honor in every single case where there is a lawful seizure and an unlawful search like walter against united states like coolidge against new hampshire like orton against california like berenger the police have physical custody of the container that they believe contains evidence but they do not inventory it because it's not taken so they didn't believe it had evidence they just took it because the guy's going to be deported to do want to leave his wallet behind now you're underwater against united states as a contrary walter against united states had the pornographic in those circumstances they wouldn't not have been able to legally seize a volunteer any circumstance if they believe that it contained nothing about an entry value they took an item of personal property without any justification for invading that up moment they picked it up what is there in the record that says they believe there was something that they needed evidentially and that for the simple immigration thing where they have a clearly a good file identification which can be of assistance in an immigration proceeding and the district court's holding it says that he is looking for identification in an immigration proceeding is a valid law enforcement purpose now and that may give him as the supreme court says an horton against california the fullest measure of probable cause to invade his possessory interest in the wall but because the wall is a closed container and also has around it a shroud of privacy that cannot be invaded absent a warrant or exception of the work requirement when he searched it when he opened he invaded without probable cause i'm sorry without a warrant without any exceptions the worm farm is a private space because he believed it that so that would be reasonable that doesn't mean that he had the ability to open it without a warrant but isn't that exactly what time do you give you what is usual wait around the warrant requirement it gives you a way around the word harmon to seize items of evidence  think they open a while they don't find a gun permit or anything like that they just find identification stuff but they use it they find stuff in there that's helpful to them every five crew from how we entered illegally if i you know they think that even allowing for an immigration proceeding the immigration agents who entered his home needed justification is under the fourth and then they had that the trigger on that they did to enter his home to arrest him to conduct a protective sweep to search his grab area eye i don't think it is different i know you to be honest your art or the supreme court in ross against united states said that protections are containers all closed containers extend equally to all closed in centers no matter their  greed with that and seem to implicitly agree that it then applied for a search warrant at some point on the ground you'd be looking the basis for your search would be in a civil case  confused me a little bit you you would say that i can find proof of identification that i could use in the removal proceedings which i search warrant a civil cases a little unusual concept that he had lied when he called out an application or got all that criminal activity you had no reason to suspect any of that evidence of that or you had reason to find it you might find something in that wallet that would help you picture they have a hard time writing things that doesn't create an exception for was very special set of circumstances for one wallets which may be the most which i should be perhaps the most private kinds of property for  had there not been an illegal seizure of the gun yes your honor and i think looking at that the factors in a brown versus illinois the temporal proximity intervening circumstances that passed from the government to your point is awash in and i realize that the government processed and fingerprinted was the same agent but however i think that the third and most important factor in a brown is what really there was mission this case is the fact that there was no flagrant official misconduct whatsoever interacting reasonably both in open the law and that they have i go up two steps i don't see the probable cause really in taking seizing a while but let's assume that's can see it and then take it down to the to the station with the notion that they're going to get a search warrant lose your possessory rights so they can seize it and your probable cause that there may be evidence is good not for seizure but then you go get a search warrant because there's evidence of a you have basis for believing there's evidence of a crime that why you go out so have a right to get a search warrant for evidence government has a very heavy burden of proof in a criminal case but in the deportation case in one thing he says i'm i think i am i think i am a different vide said then i think i can see the agent saying well show me some identification that proves you're not who you say you are or you're not who we have a warrant for that's not the case he's never denied he is back the open the door w when they said i'm here for so and so he came down open or he didn't say i'm sorry go to another house you've got the wrong address you get the wrong guy we've never an issue in this case about who he was in the th you might have something there but at least in my mind that it becomes a wash because the whole of the state is about that which they got illegally i don't know where the intervening break of certain clothes ation is broken they got the gun assume that for purposes of argument because i thought it was simplify the argument i was incorrect we are not conceding that it is easier here was not supported by probable cause because there was no purpose whatsoever in taking the identification he did say that at page one sixteen of the record agent posix confirms we knew we had the right guy and it page ninety four of the records he says i was getting the immigration getting the identification documents because it would grease the wheels because it would make the immigration proceedings go more smoothly second i would like to of finding that either of those was just five zero or the surgeon's case finally regarding the fruit of the unlawful seizure the gun permit the gun the first on one confession and the subsequent signed confession contrary to what the government says nothing purges the primary taint of the illegal seizure there is insufficient time taylor against alabama involved a six hour glass of time this case involved a five hour lapse of time as intelligence alabama there are no intervening circumstances mr of arab media was in custody without access to a lawyer  us is the official misconduct because agent posix when he finished with the immigration questionnaire began immediately with the proceeds of the illegal search he asked mr  first question handwritten question on page sixty two of the appendix ask him about the caliber action and manufacture of the gun he started right there and let mr verify dno through exploitation is exploitation of the illegal search and its proceeds all three brown against illinois factors weigh heavily in favor of finding that the fruit of this on lawful search the gun gun permit first confession and second confession removed i think the issue could be for is that way or i think it could be friend i just don't know of any if it is already there wasn't really that way but that's what it comes down to i mean they're arresting the guy and somebody gets it you know we had some it may be maybe it would make it a little easier to get rid of them even though he hasn't challenge his identity or anything like that that amount the probable cause to steal in a sense the most personal thing that  would be your wallet right i think this exceed your old boy you certainly don't want somebody searching i was a destroying sixteen year old boy actually i wouldn't have minded nothing you  but then they turned them to encourage them to we voluntarily they they found social security cards and many of them and they they indicted them for for the reluctantly and they thought it was vastly unfair but they basically said what choice do we have either we put this guy in jail forever or for a long long time fighting a case or we said look and get back with no more immigration context somebody has a non judicial one walks in a white house to arrest somebody what rights do they have and specifically do they have a right to see these or search  crimes but the crime this case is kind of been distorted because role playing out again and you know ironically just what i see in the play but they actually could probably find a significant percentage of him another and that's with public centers office for two years or i came in september two thousand and six to the appeals unit and in july this year moved to trial ok thank you ron i had a callous started just about the same t