in support of the second argument the argument that the search warrant was invalid because it does not contain the direction to seize or the words seize or seizure i cited united states versus  officers undertake a search with a warrant that is invalid the search is a war search and i believe the government can see the point in its response brief secondly in the repl page five i discovered an error after i filed the brief and near the top of page five i referred to defendant's argument in the trial court that he voluntarily consented surge and of course i property was a dwelling judge a confound that it was not dwelling as a result she did not reach the issue where the curtilage began or ended finding there's no dwelling and therefore there's no curtilage if the court agrees with the defendant's argument that this structure was a welly then the case would need to be remanded back or judge a can to determine where the curtilage began and why should we disagree with jenny and on this point that is to say she goes through a fair amount of detail saying oh that was one of my guests coastal code in a closet overlooks many facts that were brought out in the briefing that were part of the record the record in the hearing i was not the attorney as i'm sure the court knows but most of the hearing had to do with issues like was there a fence around the entire perimeter of the property and more than that about the issues of custody and consent which arose prior to the obtaining of the warrant and j case the pen and use the trailer is a full time residence as recently as august of zero two and that was a little over a year before the search was a full time residents in  judge a can states control it was never a full time residents at all at no time and then in the last year up until the time of the search it was a half time hole that had electricity and running water might have electricity and running water at the time of the search for me or did it have electricity and running water at the time of the search i believe the testimony was that it had been shut off shortly before the time of the search but up until a week or two before th s there were a microwave plates cups and food there was an outhouse type area functioning restroom for showers a washer and dryer near the trailer video tapes games a satellite t v subscription hot and the financing of the entire perimeter even though there may have been gaps that the officers leaked through that also shows in show on intent and i don't there was of course no contrary testimony the officers could only testify about what they found at the moment that they came in and there was much explanation but the defendant tended to pursue every talk the other issues out and i notice i'm getting there time where i need some subtle be the issue of the safety valve i wanted to bring up briefly this was a case where there was no indication of a leadership role by the defendant rescinds report didn't mention any such leadership role there was never any evidence of a leadership role until he went to the safety valve and be briefed on the story and his statements were interpret construed by the government as stating that he had led others and as a threshold issue that we argue that violates the right again required to come in and testify or give tell truthfully what happened and then when he does so he's disqualified from the safety valve soley based on information that he's given and there is rebuttal the second issuance of russian the argument that the warrant failed to include the word seize or seizure the government argues that well everything's in plain view this again is an issue that the concludes contrary to judge a can that the warrant was invalid then plain view would have to be addressed for the first time in the show thank you and you've saved some time and you have saved some time has raised only the issue of whether this travel trailer is welling with curtilage when you look at the facts however even at the defendant's best argument the critical observations the first snow occurred four hundred ten feet from the travel trailer that being in the brush not even close to any area there that would constitute her live even if the travel indicate that her vet findings of fact were clear air well let me and let me ask you this where i'm focusing now on judging and finding that the trailer was not being used as and welling's such as to trigger this notion of herd allege with respect to a dwelling that's correct now there was a fair amount of evidence that it was being used as maybe as much as half time as well i there's a legal question i have and i don't know the answer to it  do we look at what appeared to the officers to be the case that is to say when they want to look down that or do we look in addition to what we learn later from testimony where someone we believe what he says was on there half the time washer and dryer there vassar says it certainly didn't see if it was in the laundry that the defendant had it certainly was this is the middle of the semper when it's cold in southern or there was nothing there to indicate even objectively from the outside that going into the travel trailer that anyone was using that travel trailer as a dwelling at their present point there was in that's why i think they're on ultimately looks at will is there anything there that would indicate to so when you look at judge a can still find it and you compare the exhibits with this defense house being fully furnished he did it with a travel trailer not having water at the time not having electricity or this man is saying well i use the bathroom in some hole away runners mr car mentioned two smells the first smell he said was more than four hundred yards away from the trailer that the problem with that first smell it doesn't matter they couldn't detect where it was coming from they were in the middle of the brush there was no realisation or recognition by the officers that a smell was coming from the vicinity of the clearing of the travel trailers until they got the closer seconds mel and at that point we contend they were in the curtilage at least arguably and on this is no seizure of language in the warrant the warrant does not authorize anyone to seize anything it doesn't say see there's nothing about it says you may search this property or these things you may search but there's nothing about seizing at all so if those seizures were authorized they couldn't have been authorized by that warrant says what happened to mr hafter it can happen that there's no evidence that you are disqualified from the other four criteria you go in to give an honest and truthful and complete safety valve reading and you're then disqualified