showing that illegal activity is occurring can and should be expanded to permit entry into an apartment when there is reasonable suspicion that the for eventually her in question but the probation officer the day of the officer did not believe that he lived there they went to the address she took him along with police officers to determine whether he in fact did live there they by violating someone else's rights is not appropriate mr and right it could have picked out any house and said i live there i live there that would certainly not give probation officers that along with the police believed that he did not live there they prevention officer testified at the suppression hearing when asked why she entered the apartment and whether she believed that he lived short of simply for getting at the going home if i can paraphrase for your saying and violating other people's fourth amendment rights when they went to the apartment there were in fact three other people in the apartment they could have knocked on the door and asked permission from the people in the apartment whether it was ok they could have done an investigation like they did and conway in conway they spent some time investigating where in fact the defendant lived they had information from neighbors who had seen him on numerous occasions walking his dog they had information from the defendant himself said he can't go to that house my dog will think the reason i am arguing there was no reason also suspicion is because that's what the for bench and officer stated in testimony during the suppression hearing that she did not believe that he lived there and if the probation officer did not believe she lived there the the fact is based upon the probation officer's testimony this was not in free into the apartment to verify he lived there a was the case and conway where the defendant opened the door with the key and the officer went and with this was the case that the probation officer and the police entered the apartment essentially to verify that he does not live there and that is based on what the probation officer testified to at the time of the suppression hearing she stated i had suspicions that he did not  been he indicated that there were in conway and that they believe he lived there when he was saying he didn't we might be in a different situation but the fact is he said he lived there and they believe that he did not and if he searches they're going to pay our entry into the apartment because i think that it's been three and through the apartment that is the first question that is the that is being michele for each of constitutional right of mr sanchez and others in that apartment and there are all kinds of things that can be done other than simply walking away from that as i said they could have knocked on the door they could have waited until someone else came to the to the apartment they could have done any number of things rather than essentially breaking on to the apartment all of the other things that occurred they went to the bedroom and saw  reasonable cause to believe a probation or had violated his conditions of supervision was not in violation of the fourth amendment based upon reasonable suspicion second issue is with respect to the district court's finding that the motion to dismiss the motion to suppress having what's most important is an actual factual understanding of the case in this particular instance of the suppression hearing establish that the defendant that these probation e had given a street address for an apartment complex but has not given a number clearly at the exit provocative d eight on staff he was not asked your honor i've reviewed the transcript i find no indication that he was asked however there is an indication on page fifty nine of the excerpt of the record that probation aren't you really arguing that the violation of his probation was that he gave an inadequate address because he did not give the apartment number collector therefore even though the apartment manager then a fight him as a person  complex he never gets the number and he rents this apartment and you're an alias so yes just to stir things up something i don't know about the fact he doesn't live there but of the fact that he's he's doing something for some reason doesn't want people and when he rented that apartment he used an alias name and sold the crime and corrections officers testified they believe he was being deceptive about his address and deceptive about his name and that's what the record supports they searched him for a key didn't find the done that now but your position that the violation occurred right then yes and it was further investigation because they went to the address that he gave and i found out it was an apartment complex doing the apartment number virtually would not comply with the regulations he didn't even do that that we find well put another way the apartment manager saying that here in this apartment that wouldn't comply with the regulation now you are  know the government contends that the district court did properly applied conway in this case i would also like to address the second issue which is with respect to process misconduct this was raised by the defendant again in the reply brief there were a number of issues that the defense complained about i'd like to discuss just a few the first is with respect to the polygraph and the defendant indicates that the court and the counsel was misled with respect to the polygraph examination your honor this was  situation in which the government requested a polygraph a codefendant to determine whether or not in fact he was providing truthful information about the defendant sanchez this was a tool that the government was using to verify whether or not this individual w being truthful he took the risk it's a polygraph the polygraph results indicated that he had not been deceptive now the defendant complains that the a u s a when he represented what the results the polygraph were didn't like the way that was presented but in this particular case i think what's important is that all of the polygraph information was provided to defense counsel way in advance of trial they had an opportunity to review the material more importantly the polygraph information was never used to trial is also a second allegation with respect to corps an employee your honor that is without merit because in this particular case no plea was ever coerced the defendant never attempted to enter a plea he never pled he invoked his right to go to trial and a jury convicted him that's his due process rights were not violated the last issue i'd like to discuss this with respect to the witness statements and that kind of alleges that there was an interference with witnesses you are so in this case the witnesses provided contradictory information why we cannot say for sure we know that these were young men approximately twenty one years old who were childhood friends of this particular defendant we know that andretti changed his plea and all of a sudden the statements changed to implicate and friday instead of sanchez what's important is that there is no evidence that the government ever interfered with these witnesses ability to testify at trial not like the case of lord where the government  case where the government interviewed a witness told her she could be possibly charged with several violations including perjury when she testified she refused to answer over thirty questions in about the fifth not the situation here your hon her what is the difference between threatening somebody with prosecution and telling them that if they testify falsely there's they could be prosecuted for perjury while you're out of the case  clearly it's ports that the government should advise a witness if the date with respect to perjury and the consequences of perjury i think then the threatening depends upon the context of the situation and then most importantly we have to determine did that cause substantial interference without witnesses ability to testify and there's no evidence of that in this case at the end of the day this court has to determine whether or not the prosecutor's conduct was so outrageous and so grossly shocking that a violent in our sense of universal justice i don't believe that is the case in this situation this prosecutor was seeking justice and he was searching for the truth that's why he requested the polygraph examination he wanted to know and ri providing truthful information is the defendant never intended to use that a trial and did not use at a trial that's why when he interviewed these witnesses and he believed there were lying and the record supports that they admitted they were lying he advised them of the consequences of perjury he told them repeatedly to tell the truth not to exaggerate he was seeking justice and searching for the truth his conduct in this case was not did not cost prosecutorial misconduct and that's your honor we respectfully a little time i'm going to talk very rapidly ok your honour's with respect to the entry into the apartment the government's trying to have it both ways either they believed he lived there or in which case there was no need for any of them pertinent or they believe he did have a duty to investigate they do have a duty to be sure the probationers are living where they say and doing what they're supposed to do but they also have a duty to the rest of us not to violate our rights and that's what happened here