our our next case of the morning is united states against repeatedly a stablished that giving no information about source of a confidential informant and then with no real mr papo so far as i can see your entire argument and the district courts find rest on the supposition that the oral presentation to the state did not contain any information and therefore we're judging  on the affidavit alone but that is not how the state judge issued the warrant there was an affidavit and an oral presentation which i gather everyone agrees was under oath why should the contents of that well st of all i don't think the court the government has established that it was under oath both the detective manning and the system things turning kirk said they didn't remember whether or not the person was put under oath but even if they were put under oath and part of the problem may be part of problem and we have no idea what information was shared we have no idea what questions were  obviously not in the th amendment has the supreme court held that you're out of the supreme court has held that the purpose of the war requirement is to let it neutral in detached ma us back to that council this brings us back of course to leon how would every reasonable officer know that this warrant was invalid when you can't find a case of the supreme court requiring contemporaneous recording of the oral information presented to the issuing judge your honor a reasonable officer in this case would have known that the warrant in this case was not good based on we don't know what happened and so we can't assume that questioning the questioning was done here you're relying on the police officers version i don't really i wasn't paying attention to what he was honestly asking and so if you're going to allow the police officer to supplement his affidavit by saying i took the c i in front of the judge and i will tell you what did or didn't happen even though i don't remember what i did or didn't happen then you're simply letting the police officer supplement his  and i do find the judge cabinet was informed of the defendant's motivation for testifying and specifically that he had the pending charges can you read as a finding by the district court based upon what she i think it's pretty clear that judge general knew where we were going once it was discovered that detective manning's left this information out and she knew where it was going and and so yes it is we argue that that finding is clearly erroneous we know that's a high standard but you know it's our position that detective men cannot both have said i don't know what was asked because i have no memory and i wasn't paying attention and then for the st time after direct cross and redirect suddenly remember oh yes oh and by the way now i do remember that the district judge i didn't tell the judge this and they didn't tell the judge this but i now remarkably remember that the judge asked in a confidential informant about his motivation for providing information but it is certainly a finding by the district judge your honor it is our position however that if the judge darryl still correctly found there was no probable cause and then if you go to  but the point of the exclusionary rule is to deter the police from engaging in this conduct and so we're not going to give the police the benefit of the doubt relying on in good faith on a warrant it for example the police were told recklessly would hold information from the judge and in glover the court found that yes it's good that the police took the c i in front of the judge but then they didn't tell the c i about the excuse me the judge about the c i reliability problems and the court said that you were going to say that that fixed everything because the hold otherwise would place a substantial burden on the magistrate to understand that this is different in that you have meetings for us the moment that the judge did ask about this but you have an officer who provides no reliability information even though this court the supreme court has held that that is a critical issue in determining the totality of the circumstances in this court has repeatedly found affidavits that are very very similar to not establish probable cause so no reasonable officer could have found that this warrant was based on probable cause even without the reckless omissions but if you include those it's our position  officer who recklessly admit to the tiriel information doesn't succeed in fooling the judge if you believe minks testimony that then somehow they get good faith protections because but you can say whatever time you want ok i will thank you good morning may have please the court my name is jennifer matthew on behalf of the united states alternatively consistent with this court's decision in leon a reasonable officer could conclude that the presentation of the confidential source coupled with the four corners of the search warrant affidavit constituted the necessary probable cause to search the defendants have before turning to my primary argument i would like to comment on a couple of things brought up by counsel in their argument and specifically that is the examination of this court's decision in glover and whether or not the glover case is specifically analogous to this case i would also like to turn to counsel's discussion of the decisions of this court in regard to the other five cases  as an argument and glover the affidavit in mission affidavit omitted all of the information about the c f its credibility here however the district court made clear findings at the conclusion of the st day of the suppression  as well as reiterated those findings and the nd day of the suppression hearing findings detectives means credible and also indicating that the issuing judge was aware of the confidential sources pending criminal charges this testimony is further both started by a it's a curse testimony in that the issuing judge is the same judge that arraigned that confidential source in that county court here i think it's clear that this court should not only consider the four corners of the affidavit but also consider the oral presentation of the confidential source before the issuing court it's that type of presentation in which the issuing judge is able to inquire directly of the confidential source assessing their manner their responsiveness to question and make that final credibility determination prior to issuing the search warrant in regards to defend its counsel's comments about the lack of information that was provided by detective named during the course of the suppression hearing i think it's clear from the record that was detected me did not have answers to all the questions put to him by counsel the answers were honest in forthright in the things that he both could remember in could not remember and i think it's clear from boiled detective means of testimony it's a curse testimony as well as looking at the search warrant itself which indicates that it was that that confidential source was being sworn in that the matter is in fact stated in the complaint are true of his own knowledge i think it's clear from that that the confidential source was placed under oath before judge cavanagh inquired of him at the time of the search warrant being issue honor i can see now how that could be taken as a strong word in order to describe the district court's decision i would agree with this court to sacrament that it was debatable and that there are factors that weigh in favor of probable cause here as i've already indicated a confidential source was presented to the issuing magistrate that information that the confidential source provided to protected me was corroborated by members of the ellsberg police department as well as detective me here detective means travels to the address that the confidential source provided observe the property looked up the defendant on facebook and confirm his nickname  in addition to that your honor this information provided by the c s was st hand information and details here unlike some of the other matters that have been considered by this court in the case as outlined in our briefing the information was details as to the amount of drugs the location within the home where the drugs were kept within the home how recently he had entered the residence what the residence looks like as well as information personal information about the defendant however at this court is not persuaded that the gregory factors do support a finding probable cause the district court did correctly hold that even absent probable cause the leon good faith exception would apply me endeavored to do in this instance that physically here i corroborating that information provided to him by the confidential source and presenting the confidential source to the issue and judge at the time of the search warrant application furthermore i would like to note that when looking at this we answered faith exception the presumption is that the officer acted in good faith and i think there's something to be said for the fact that detectives mean took the confidential source before t issuing judge and allowed the issuing judge to pose questions to that confidential source about information or follow up questions about other things contained within that affidavit that the court had an opportunity to assess again the credibility of that confidential source and determine as a district court made a clear finding and determine the reasoning or the benefit of the confidential source may get from providing that information as we argued in our brief instant case here is more similar to the facts of the law a case in which this court determined that probable cause existed similarly to the way matter the police in the way drove by the defendant's home confirm the c s s description of the house if there are no further questions from the court we would rely on the arguments in our briefs and ask that the court affirm the district court's decision denying the defendant's motion to suppress thank you thank you ms matthew anything further mister small matter and certainly the exclusionary rule is not a personal th amendment right the supreme court has said that it is not and that its purpose is to deter future th amendment violation by the police an officer who writes a search warrant affidavit using john doe confidential informant who gives no reliability information about that informant zero then fails to inform the issuing magistrate that john doe's also has pending charges that he's trying to work off which one would hope somebody coming straight out of the police academy would know is required under the th amendment it's not acting in good faith and if you want to see this not happen again in the future and not have another line of another case in the line of active tester a subject of right subjective reasonableness but when an officer recklessly withhold information that any objective officer knows the magic issue magistrate would want to know then that raises the can support the very reasonable inference that the reason he's withholding info is he doesn't want the judge to know but it's certainly an objective test around