occasion under state law even if it were valid which of course mr jones disputes does not and cannot in large federal enforcement powers to permit were troll agents to enforce the state laws anywhere at any time when that force that is otherwise beyond their lawful federal mandate now the government i believe does not dispute that congress has not authorized the expenditure of federal funds in the district court it was found that there was no having gratian nexus here the report recommendations adopted by the district court found that this stock was not related to any interdiction of immigration offenses it was not commentary and concern on this issue both by the publication put out by the heritage foundation and by the department of justice itself indicated you're right that interesting there is that i could find no new case law on this exact set of circumstances however there is case law establishing that an individual has standing u nder has standing to contest this i don't rise to action and also there is case law indicating that when an injury has occurred suppression in a criminal case may be found that a violation of that act did give rise to an individual being able to sit pursue suppression of evidence in a criminal matter and in fact in that he's the panel had  agency that is or to the navy one of their one of their staff had found evidence that a civilian was engaged in child porn offenses and passed on to someone else throughout the court extraordinary remedy it is limited in its use to where it's needed for deterrence and of course if it's not needed here this matter was a one off it's being taken care of and we don't need to worry we don't need to impose the remedy of suppression to deter it from happening again here in contrast there is not been any acknowledgement or discussion from either the border patrol or the government in the course of this case and in the briefing to indicate awareness of the problematic need sure of federal agencies in forcing state laws unrelated to their federal mission that is why terms would be appropriate here and and why do you why do you say it's unrelated to the federal mission  a grant of the you know we look just specifically at the moment of the stop the stop was for a violation of state law but the only reason they're following the d defendant was because they  location because they were conducting surveillance on a an area where there have been alien smuggling but the district court found that they did not pursue mr jones and initiate to stop because of immigration it was not stop supported by any suspicion that there were immigration offenses involved he just had to be driving by and they were staking out the park so under the theory that that's enough to provide a nexus really there be no have any of that so in that theory if it happened instead ten minutes later when they had driven around the block to the dairy queen to get coffee and someone drove by and hanta looked at them and about whether or not they have the ordinary justification of making a stop assuming authority to make stop was dead what we're talking about is are they somehow within the broadly defined function of federal law enforcement which is a different question how close to the federal law enforcement function does this have to be they would clearly staking it out for a federal law enforcement purpose the car does the s u v drives past them in an odd sort of way they pursue it's possible that there was something going on related to the to the to the immigration function the stops they made was justified of course not because of the immigration function but it wasn't as though they were on entirely independent frolic as judge miller suggests they just got up their morning and said we're going to we're going to go and force the traffic laws for the state of arizona thank you very much will be pleased to do that for you well your honor i have would say  approach a frolic it wasn't something they woke up and said they would do but as they were standing as they were sitting there in this car drove by them they in that moment took some underage at this driver honking at them and looking at them as he drove around and then gave chase agent bullock who was the only agent found by the district court to be cross certified testified that he understood his his power of enforcement to be for matters related to border crimes but in no in no case to either agent testify that the impetus for their scrutiny was because they thought there were any very little had occurred at the time these agents decided to grow to mr john yeah absolutely you know it's a little bit you know like and if you move quickly in front of a cat and you're smaller than have the gascon to do something something you look quickly or say something insulting go law enforcement officer they've just got these instincts right now if that happens and we talk about cost of cation it looks as though the cross sort of occasional bow hermanson did not comply with arizona law that is to say he sent a letter saying he would fulfilled all requirements but as i read the arizona law he did not needs to send not only the letter but he needs to send the because the government is relying on that cross certification to say that this action was valid this action by these federal agents was valid and if this court does not look at it there will be no review on it there's no state review to ascertain compliance and there is no check to so there would be it would be really a meaningless requirement if there's no way of verifying it and if it all depends on one sheriff's sending a letter for federal courts to say ok that's ok this is authorized the government has the burden to prove that the federal using it for a lot of there were the shield of this distance will cross certification to allege that their actions were authorized as federal agents the failure to provide some evidence to the sheriff's department and those can be consider negligent but that isn't enough to require suppression and so so bright  there starting with the last point the duty to protect the office or the agents testified that when the car went by they looked at each other they something that's interesting and then they started to pursue him so they could get a plate and run it there was no indication from the testimony that mr johns was in gauged in dangerous behavior prior to the agency's taking off after him as to the point judge fletcher raised i think that's very important about the fact that agent hermanson who also participated in the star is the same agent who had submitted agent will us name and it is not just that he was supervisory agent he's extremely high up in the border patrol he was several levels above agent pollock in fact he was so high up that when i was preparing this case for argument with my colleagues we were wondering how common it would even be for him to this case and if this court were to accept the government's position it would essentially be putting the records in for much or on a substantial expansion of federal police powers beyond that authorized by congress because it would