is however a situation that really is quite unusual in my experience over many years i virtually never seen a case where there's been so much important information needed from the wire easier to evaluate in some respects and omission like you have here so you're in this hypothetical for example trying to figure out whether there's a franks hearing right that you actually had and so it would help me if why grant so when they need a search warrant all the information goes into the state search warrant affidavit when they want to wiretap to leave stuff up now a friend's hearing at a minimum was and then what happened what really happened they brought the wiretap down almost immediately they never got any more suppliers they never got any more higher ups they never found the stash houses to me this is the border plate that you see in every affidavit that why you need wiretaps because it words if you put those boilerplate allegations in a wiretap affidavit it's going to be granted but did they really wanted for that purpose system now and i think when you're overwhelming that for purposes of process you want to at least get the franks hearing and you might end up the same but right now i'm that's true i might wind up the same but there may be more here i mean to think i we had to judge collins denied a motion to suppress defendant makes two arguments first that judge cooper should have never signed off on that wiretap because in his view there is so much boilerplate information that is surprising that some of the facts are the same as it was it will lay did investigation into a related drug ring so i think it would have been error a further mistake for the government not to have put in some of those same facts having said that there was clearly information that was not boilerplate and that was not to put in the application for target telephone sticks and specifically those facts are  found in the government's brief on page eighteen and nineteen but just to go over them a little bit for your honour's press clarification they are the facts regarding this in october although the date was not put in tied directly to this defendant and therefore hopefully this organization that is surveillance at the palatine residence which was not successful for a variety of reasons one the location itself had narrow hallway a parking garage that was difficult at least if not impossible to get radio contact or cell phone coverage to the fact that on fifteen different locations ok mr hernandez  there was also surveillance at the anaheim location and street i believe it was and that's found in the the excerpts of record at thirty five and seventy four that location w the telephone and the registration for the vehicle that the government and the agents had determined mr hernandez drove so there was some investigation into that however that location was determined to be a mail drop so additional  surveillance on that location would not have been successful there was also surveillance at euclid street which was supposedly the address on a business card for romeo auto sales that was found at the execution of a search warrant at pallant time unfortunately there were some problems with that location number one there was i believe it's one thousand see i could be wrong on that but there was no nine hundred c e or there was no sweet failed set up and then you had one actual by correct that was left out yes and i think that's a different point than the boilerplate which i was trying to address but to switch gears in terms of the omissions which i think your honor now right there is some boilerplate but i guess the real question is is putting this together is there enough what went on here that smells to a degree that to negotiate for a purchase but that purchase never took place and in fact when the u c tried to call back defendant didn't answer the telephone calls judge collins received that information and based on his two part frank's test determined yes it was omitted and it either was reckless or it either it was admitted and it should have been included there's no argument in the government isn't making one as to the first prong it's second prong as to how would that information adversely affected the wiretap will be material to the wiretap as judge collins found and as i believe the first question was that information that is that the government an informant and tried to use an undercover officer and both although defendant argues that those were successful because there was an eighth of an ounce purchased there is it certainly doesn't go to the larger on well it's a little unclear from the record but i was able to also speak to the case agent and i did leave a message for my former colleagues so i assume i'll be billed soon but  huntington beach police department had a preexisting investigation and that's what was taking place in two thousand and four the drug enforcement administration had an investigation and you'll note that we are on target telephone not in which is at issue here so it had an investigation going back but that didn't really include hernandez or his people there was a i guess my question is going to this issue it doesn't seem that this information is all that started that the cia and the u c were not trustworthy and that he wasn't going to deal with them really whether that was a lot of months or eleven days in some ways doesn't matter because if the defendant wasn't going to deal with them he wasn't going to deal with them and putting nat in the info in the indictment in the affidavit would have actually helped necessity but so there is a scale issue and that is certainly a finding of fact that is reviewed for clear error and that's a finding of fact that judge collins made but there were two somewhat parallel investigations going on so i don't want to mislead your honor and say that the investigation wasn't long term but the two came together i believe in early two thousand and five through sort of a clearing house and a law enforcement conflict in an attempt to find out so in that regard moreover the information that was used for probable cause which is not challenge here was certainly much more recent in february of two thousand and five rather than back to may of two thousand and four so in that  regard it wasn't as long term although certainly there have been enough done to show that the traditional methods of investigation were not going to be fruitful in uncovering the goals that the government had set for with regard to the friends here and it seems to me that once you keep having all nations and missions hidden evidence somebody has to get to the bombs maybe i'm a little old school but how do we know there's not more i've done what i could