statement of the officer there are three different attachments to the warrant were not attached to the warrant were not given to the defendant and were not available to the other police officers executing the warrant at the time the warrant was executed that the entire warrant on every every ground there are seven different categories was defective an overbroad and i won't go into then detail because we've laid each one out in the brief but i think the most important issue is the issue of forfeiture by the government the issue of severance was raised below by us in our moving papers and the government chose not to raise the issue of severance on paragraph six and seven of the search warrant which we claim said we are surprised that the government hasn't raised the issue of severance and number two even if they had it wouldn't apply but the government twice intentionally knowingly never raised the issue of severance either to the district court to this court and under this court's ruling and current guard the government has forfeited or waived that argument now i would turn around is what would have defended if a defendant had failed to raise an argument below and raise it for the first time an appeal this court would apply all lined up but we have a situation here where the government did not raise of below and did not raise it in its answer brief they have forfeited that known right because they took an intentional position they wanted all or nothing they took that position knowing when they took it before the district court and they took it before this court and so our position is having done that they're not entitled now to stand before this court and have the severance issue argument just as a defendant would not be able to do that and it's a difference between waiver and forfeiture this is a forfeiture issue knew it intentionally know right of the government has to have known a rap about because we raised it we if they didn't know about of all we raised it and i'm moving papers and they didn't go for that they said no we're not interested in severance they stood before the district weekend of them on the basis that appears in a record even if the judge got it wrong that's correct but the court should know is there enough in this record to show th affirm we say there is a god and that's the issue that the government asking this court to do is say if the court wants to sever and say that sections item sixty seven in this particular case are specifically about course we argue they're all out but  f six and seven are out there asking for a real man so the district court can make an evidentiary finding as to what evidence could be found under some other exception and we disagree with that for several reasons one the case the remaining was simply for the court to make further factual findings on evidence that was already before the court just found it was insufficient and another one the court simply remained it to say now that we found you know this particular section invalid simply rule on what evidence was found pursuant to that section and dismissed it nobody and this court is not address a situation where the government took an all or nothing position and have lost and now says ok we took that position we want to second chance now if a defendant came up here and said that oh well we argued this all right we're wrong let us go back and argue something else that's never been a situation the courts cottons in this particular case the exception to the search warrant that was thrown in a position the government has to take before the lower court they have to come in if it weren't as defective or insufficient and say the l view and you disagreed de novo with the with the district court you could do that but when the government says we are intentionally not creating a record because we don't believe we need to we're going to do an all or nothing approach that this  could make a decision there's nothing that would lead us from doing what we're argument and our argument is on the existing record that the government intentionally created you can rule on the issue of whether the warrant is defective or not but you cannot rule on whether or not the government could establish whether an exception applied and because the government intentionally did not create that record there is nothing for this court to review de novo on whether there was a plain view exception or any other exception we have a warrant the government relied on that warrant it is the fact of and that's all the court can review and we're suggesting specially in this situation when the government decided to create a record that is blamed on any the seven items to be searched for honor there's also that of his opinion that that when people come on to the properties to purchase narcotics this state for short periods of time granted your honor this opinion did not see whether they walked into the property or they the p r indicated that it was the defendant keep his vehicle however your honor and the record in the clear as to whether they knew or they had this knowledge that it was the defendant's vehicle before  linked up the drug dealing and the vehicle you know all the look the court may find a leader that it was not strong enough to support probable cause it is not the officers duty or is not as you know his responsibility to question the judge you know that the e i'd like to address a little bit of confusion i think that was about the car the evidence that was before the district court was not that this was defendant's car it was just that the government said in the end the stipulation was a ford pickup truck was on the property it was not a ford pickup truck belonging to the defendant what was before the court there was no evidence before the court that the truck belonged to the defendant most importantly that's not what the warrants that the woman said any vehicles you didn't say any vehicles belonging to the defendant we wouldn't be here if that's what it said it said any vehicles and in fact the c i who went to the house never said a word about any of the eagles being at the house an vehicles been used by the defendant any vehicles being owned by the defendant and the police officer did not make any independent observations of the vehicle being used in drug dealing or being used by the defendant at all or anything what the war a drug dealer ok and based upon my personal opinion as a law enforcement officer we're going to see drug dealers may keep evidence in cars and we're going to search all cars when kind of warrant is invalid but more importantly that's widely on doesn't apply because leon does not apply when the judicial officer forsakes his role as a judge in neutrally an arbitrary and impartially reviewing  so the same thing this is not new law when an officer goes in front of a judge and does not have p c for each item in each person to be searched that is per se invalid and the police forces could not have not known that