well we're getting new counsel settled i am going to stay for the record that what is obvious to all of us here would namely that our colleague judge rough winter is participating today by video he's very much the government simply do not have probable cause to stop arrest and search mr wong it was not supported by probable cause on this there were at their direct undercover baez from there was only one purported enough's well it was the that purchase was not supported by any type of wire typically that you had to watch well the under the under gambit the police officer went with the informant searched the informant before provided the money the under and the informant goes in makes a buyer comes back and says he made a buy and he's got drugs well it certainly wasn't that wasn't contained within the search warrant application that was test to test the water again i mean in terms of the arrest of mr along which is what you began by attacking the officer who conducted that operation are you telling me the office who conducted that operation did not have problem cause after the operation well the arrest was too long right then well he she didn't see the actual transactions there and you have a case that says the in a situation like this the officer needs to have seen the transaction to not know not specifically but there was very limited proof in this case of the actual purchase other than what the course pointed out in terms of the actual drugs that were recovered those drugs were there was a field test apparently done but there was no certified laboratory port and there was no sporting deposition from that field test so with respect to what the substances are we never obtained actual proof of what they were just walked out the door of his house or apartment immediately after these and that officer was on the scene at that moment and having conducted a field test of the drugs that came back with the informant you're saying she could not have arrested him well that's certainly what the government's contending that they could have arrested her and i think that they would have arrested him certainly at that time what with that they did exactly what any sensible law enforcement agency would do they went to try to get a warrant so they could get more evidence to make build a bigger case right the question is your say your position is that the officer could not have arrested him then because that has to be your position unless you're saying that you're contesting the collective information doctrine which is she conveyed exactly that information to the officer who did arrest mr long well i was challenging that also the collective nature of what she conveyed to the officers there was proof that she did conduct a briefing prior to the execution of the search warrant on the date of that execution on july eighteenth and i'm i was contesting the nature and extent and quality of the information that was actually conveyed at that hearing in terms of the extent that was conveyed simply i arresting officer in that he in the record of support this and he testified he was simply told to arrest mr long regardless he didn't know the basis or the reason that he was arresting mr wong there was no vehicle traffic violation of the time of the stop there was no arrest warrant for his arrest he was stopped some distance away from his home in the process of executing the warrant and there was a war for both occur in the home at this time is there a case law saying it's invalid under the c action doctrine if the officer who does have probable cause merely in spots and an officer carry out an arrest no just that i our position was that there had to be some additional information relative to the nature of subst wn drug users of both marijuana and meth loner ecstasy confidential for it was a pain informant by both state agencies and federal agencies and in excess or approximately three thousand dollars and she was provided bonuses for additional information the field test that was in the in the war as i indicated was not supported by a sporting deposition and there was no actual certified laboratory report for that purported substance that was allegedly purchased  on that date which was july sixteenth two days before the world was executed so i believe that our position is that i'm a strong winds improperly denied his franks hearing relative to the war based on i want you want to point out that the guns in this case were found inside the home in the primary drugs the principal drugs in the case were found in the car hidden in the vehicle afford it you know distance from that the drill the guns themselves passes would be a fear of theoretical evidence or speculative evidence of the use of the firearms in connection with the drug trafficking offense so we respect that particular count judge i respectfully submit that there was insufficient proof long first as your honor pointed out the arrest here was indeed based on probable cause namely the hand to hand purchase that was say purchase and sale that was done fact that mr long's name was on the utilities for the address thirty five chime or the fact that she had seen him driving the seventy seven white cadillac on prior occasions the fact that the red cadillac was registered to him at that address and of course the corroborating evidence also of the confidential informants prior successful work for r p t thirdly in terms of the evidence oh and and with respect to the franks issue judge we really looked at this two different ways first of all you could look at  the way that i believe the district court did which was to say well even even if you consider the drug use in the payments if you sort of insert those into the search warrant affidavit it would make any difference here and that's what the district court here concluded we took the additional step of saying well even if you remove the end for the information that only came from the informant and just go with what officer morale us investigator morale is witnessed with the information  other information she developed that was sufficient for probable cause here as well so on either basis that is materiality or the necessity prongs of the franks issue the government the government prevails in the  defendant does not meet his burden of requesting a franks hearing third in terms of the evidence it was sufficient on all four counts and i would start here by reminding the court that mr along with the time he was arrested essentially admitted to every element of every care he was questioned by the officers and admitted ownership of the weapons admitted ownership of the drugs both in the car and in the house admitted having performed sales of marijuana before admitted that the weapon he had the weapons because he'd been robbed and because he was selling marijuana down in plymouth ave and i think that gets you well and the weapons were at the house and all the drugs were at the house and so essentially you take his admissions you've got enough to convict him of all four counts but in addition to his admissions you have all the crowd rating evidence that is the drugs that were found and so forth and the evidence that was found in the house the grinder the digital scale the extreme emission the cash and so forth finally we didn't mr long wasn't able to get to this in his argument but i would just reiterate to the court the two level unhandsome was proper here the district court is entitled to make an inquiry broad in scope largely unlimited and here it relied on the information that was developed at the detention hearing namely the obstruction or the threats that were made by mr long at the time of his arrest both to a confidential informant in jail and then the recorded phone call to a woman in which he discussed who he suspected was the confidential nature of this beast is right the amount of money was not an extraordinary amount of money to be paid for well for a person of modest means using drugs i'm thinking what would a magistrate assume when told that we had a cooperating individual do this transaction the fact that he's cooperated with the with the police informant on going basis automatically says something about his credibility which is he's got an incentive to please the police whether it's money or some sort of consideration that sentencing and finally with respect to the two level hands when i did put it in my paperwork and ask or to consider americans relative to that in find that