mushroom minder standing the court's order and i think the logical reading the court's order was that the remained was for the simple purpose of the siding whether or not inspector amended lays first saw packages marijuana through ventilation cap on the side of the door ja before dismantling the inside of the car if you saw those packages he had cause to dismantle the car if he didn't he didn't have cause and it was a non routine search and therefore all evidence should be suppressed that was proof of that i think that's a logical reading we did get into some stuff as to whether or not dismantling the interior of the car amounted to a non routine search but i think that that wasn't the issue in the inherent in the court's order was that indeed dismantling the inside of the car was a non routine search  intelligent voluntary and the defendant must know the relevant circumstances and likely consequences the burden is on the government and it's a heavy burden to show a waiver now the government doesn't meet that showing the government only fo all right so you were appear in court there is no suggestion you were in contact or able to contact your client what is the duty of defense counsel to act on behalf of his client to transmit communications from the court to his client well i think potentially that's the most interesting question in this brief but it was never really raised a lot when it was an argued by the government here is what is what's the court's authority to order me to act in that regard end question i'm just curious about here because you made the arguments flow of attorney client privilege and the question here is you know the court has rely upon defense counsel to communicate with client and the government can't communicate directly with the client without of violating the attorney client privilege and it's so how what is the regime you envision here well i think the government certainly can communicate directly with the defendant in a situation in which they're simply giving the defendant notice that he has to appear and i think that situation that your honor addressed as far as someone who's a fugitive maybe he's across state lines or hasn't appeared is different because number one he's i want to take a position so that you say then at that point puts the government and or the court on some obligation affirmatively to the news that's resources to communicate notice and they can't use defense counsel for that purpose well i think almost always what would happen in that situation is personal the defendant would have been at a prior hearing her prior proceeding in which case in which case the court would have issued a lawful order is they always do it in the hearing the next court date is this date you need to be here wasn't in court for that well my experience is that if the defendant is not going to appear in court for some reason that there has to be an acknowledgment of the next court date filed from the defendant saying i understand this is the next court date this is when i'll be here so then again the defendant has arguably violated a court order has agreed to be in court he has noticed he's going to come back and he's violated court order and i think that and then what will happen is if the defendant doesn't show up while the court may give you one more chance to get the defendant there usually however the court will in my experience wish you a bench warrant again the court may hold the bench warrant at the end of the day and say look guilty your client and assure me when your client's going to be here or that the bench w will go into effect because your client contributed to the substance of the well i think that my client could have contributed a lot in that my understanding is he did not see the search that's correct but the whole issue would have been and where the marijuana was located and if we could have been found by looking through this man according to the government he was going to get on the stand and so he hid it very carefully it's possible he could i don't know what he would say but he could stay where the marijuana was hidden that it was impossible to see through this vent from this place it was impossible to to dismantle the vents and look at where the marijuana was hidden and i don't think that that's part satisfy any means in the facts of this case because there's the court recognized in told you well it wasn't it wasn't an issue for trial and that's one of the problems that sometimes i seem to run into is the government will say well this could have even though you didn't have the evidentiary hearing it could have been fleshed out a trial but  trial and part of the jury i'm trying to focus on the issues for trial i would try clients knowledge not whether or not the search was not routine or what order of things that that the inspector did did a search on the other hand the inspector did testify in such a way trial that indicated that he did not see any packages for a ventilation cap that there was a dog alert and he dismantled the inside of the car and you were able to ask him i was able on the remained to ask him about the inconsistency in the statements but obviously it would have been a lot pan in there and steal any packages there was no way you could see in that area and the only packages the packages weren't there and that's something i just don't know we don't have the car anymore our packages are packed in there so any pictures indicating that is i think  presence then there is a constitutional violation thanks for your email counsel will hear from the government at this time this court which basically it appears that in this context there is no black letter rule that applies to every case it appears that one has to examine the circumstances in any given case to determine whether there is a right to be president and as a court client there would position me a lot more effectively of the sort of using my general knowledge of automobiles general skills of cross examination counsel just so the  so i mean are you saying the man was blind and that he was in his car and he couldn't he had no possibility of being descriptive information or furnishing descriptive information to his counsel i think we do and another reason we say that your  understanding of the system all that well and let's assume all of that that he wasn't fleeing from looters diction he just didn't understand the clear counsel tries to reach him and can't comes into court represents that i tried to find my client i can't find him so i don't know whether or not he's aware of this hearing and what his position is is the government in a position at that point to take any steps to the system itself in getting notice to him so it that's why i took my time so i understand when he goes across the border an extradition i'm talking about in the united states he's just not at least he's not in san diego ok he may be up in la jolla he may be up in carlsbad he may be up in los angeles sure that's what i'm asking i think that situation will be factually different than this one from what i know it's factually different counsel i'm trying to understand from a process standpoint if we were to hold in this case under your theory the defense counsel was an on our i don't know the answer to that question but in that situation i would like to believe that the government would take further steps and the reason i pointed out the factual differences was not to avoid the question but to point out in this case there was never any suggestion by the defense to an absolute defense counsel told us that the court issue a bench warrant that's one thing the court can do is there anything that the prosecutor can do other the person is not in mexico right other than trying to send a notice to the last known address that time of day and the place for the hearing and it didn't do it within a week within two weeks it started out two months from the spread of the end hearing which was four months from when this court issued its opinion now  defendant's immigration status how much more important would it be if the defendant was repeat repeatedly asking for the exact remedy that this court ordered and then when finally given the opportunity we don't hear an explanation oh i tried to reach my but i would like to speak about the prejudice point is the final thing i just because i know that is argued that he makes the point that we rely on wheat and prejudice is a requirement only in the rule forty three contest that is not still first