specifically says what crime is being investigated what the agents are looking for and maybe something as simple a time when the warrant was requested they hadn't interrogate the family members and they didn't want them to know before they were interrogated what they were being investigated and that's a possible explanation is evidence of that no because the government never called anyone to say to explain how as mr drum has admitted there is no evidence that we do know that from the testimony that the agents were there for some hours that day it did speak to the people who were present so it seems at least unlikely that there would have been any reason to withhold the nature of the crime at that but at the end of that year anything in the record shows whether they did or did not literally quote it from his point of view he knew that it wasn't about him they think his motive just didn't cover the question of whether the people at the scene outed knew what crime was being investigated that sense though that he knew it wasn't about him did the engines weren't there investigating him suggest to me that he probably did know that it was a child pornography case because that way he would have been able to say clearly not about me but i don't know that to support the defendant you know with that way in their favor or i mean does the government have any burden no your honor the defense needs to show the elements that would to do that that probably would not have than a technical violation but rather you know actually ignore i mean that would be a different circumstance that it would be a different basis for suppression  the piece of paper behind he left only one page of that and i do not know it is that i think that's what i'm on the up on a little bit is if you're going to read this technically how could it not be deliberate indifference in a way because he knew that it was one page what's it like a mistake where it was he left three pages and it should be by pate it was one page he knew it was one page because did he turn it over in the back and a right number to call on the back your honor i think the problem was that he was focused on the and that's what he was preparing and that's what he was focused on going over with the homeowner was the the image where he had been seized and a i'm going to give you a one page search warrant there you go and there was testimony that he said that would that be deliberate disregard if he were aware of the rule that requires that the attachments  to take you to task a little bit on that because i think there's a difference between notice the very hard to believe that he didn't notice that he had to do a it seems like the better argument is he didn't understand the  ramifications of handing them over to your honor they didn't think about it you're out of the district court not as a fact that agent chang did not realize that the warrant that was left with was don't cruise was incomplete that's a fact you didn't do that there would be no way for the homeowner to police the police to be able to to make sure that the police are doing what they were supposed to be doing and acting within the bounds of the form grabs him grabs the united states supreme court were says very clearly no that is not the purpose of the every of the war it is not necessary for the homeowners the able to police the search during the police during the course of the search i'm sorry the constitution protects property owners not by giving her license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant but by interposing ex ante the deliberate impartial judgment in traditional office or to the citizen in the police and  providing expose the right to suppress evidence improperly obtained to cause an action for damages so consistent with grubs there is no need to provide a warrant during the course of the  i only have a few more seconds i would just like to reiterate the point that the appellant has failed to show that any actor whether it actions of the other agents the district judge specifically said that there had been no there was no there was no evidence whatsoever of the burden of proof here and what was provided by the defense what we've demonstrated here is a pattern of deliberate intentional choices when you say pattern a pattern in this specific instance you're not alleging there's a pattern that they