and that is in both of those cases the initial contact was lawful we look back to the statement of facts are very greek and both of those cases they say that they initially approached the person got the identification and then the unlawful arrest occurred has conceded an unlawful detention there is no evidence that any aspect of this case was lawful so unlike any of those other cases there was never a name that was a pain as in hayes and as those are those are again those are cases where the identity initially came to the attention of the officers lawfully this does not involve that there has been no overruling of lopez and hayes the other two reasons both set out the initial contact of having been in the course of an investigation with suspicion they had a warrant they saw the person along with other people they were suspecting went up got the initial identity and then had the illegal in the way we know that is because at the district court unlike in this case in both of those cases they granted the motion to suppress the suppressed evidence and then found that other evidence had an independent source the independent source being as they had the name they could go to the in cruise i think is critical here because when cruises look at it one son says it applies same way for identification type of testimony if you can get it and find if you can show that there's an independent source it comes in think that if you read those cases the schools run the other cases a simply saying identity means something isn't important that's really what it means and that's what it's saying and that's why it doesn't apply here because we're only trying to suppress the fruits and of course the most basic part of this is that there is an the police court the city first of all your honor i have a couple of arguments or try to be brief i think the issues are framed pretty well by the briefs but with the identity is kind of a tricky issue and thinking about or struggle that i don't know really how much progress i made but i think i did progress to the point where it's the government's position that where the only identity evidence is just to prove who it is that is in court when whether that be through fingerprints  fingerprint and then used that fingerprint to go out and investigate the crime which led to other evidence in the thirteen twenty six case there is a parallel there is a parallel and that is that we take the fingerprint and then admittedly we use that eighty three last that's that's correct but if i could just briefly return to to my position which is that i think the identity issue is really does the identity evidence come in even if there is proof or a records we had your honor the only records that were produced was that he was arrested and that the there was a police report that the police officers thought maybe an ins agent was with them and maybe the it was and i  think you'd be on very solid ground this is just i'm just fulminating if the guy got busted somehow by the local police they took him in a big book then they had a fingerprint exemplar from the booking and then somebody said hey you know and then they use that if the local cops are taking the guy in and then they bring the ins in to investigate the guy and then the ones that they can bring and it begins to sound like an investigation of a case i'm getting we don't know exactly and i'm getting in my stomach time so i guess i would the product which did not happen here he said we have to suppress the product and then the fact that there was an independent source a matching between the name and the files which allowed them to take to say that the identification on the we've never said we want to stress the bikes with only one of the proofs and so that what i'm asking for is in order reversing the denial of the motion is stressed saying that it's granted and that the all evidence obtained in exploitation of the primary