because i think that is the more important argument and from time to time i may refer back to the automobile search to see whether or not the information gathered there was sufficient to create a life but we believe that the evidence was so scant that it not it did not create probable cause we also think that the evidence was bolstered by a frank violation now i'm not new to this idea and that frank's hearings are incredibly hard to get however in this case i urge the court to look at this case in this manner the district court judge  on the suppression of the automobile conceded that she had not looked at the the video but would do it before she made it here what i asked you to do is take a look at this case follow the actual body cam video because what you will see in this fact intensive argument is that the body cam is inconsistent with the affidavit prepared by becker as you know the better affidavit was submitted about four o'clock in the afternoon two to three hours after this occurred and we're not saying that apartment complex and firing a gun the caller described this individual as consistent with your description of your client so i think that seems to me to be pretty important to this issue well let's see  had a weapon in his and running him around the partner remember it started with to automobiles and the officer driving he had broke by the nissan and they stopped mr short when he was standing back to challenger so the idea that he may have had a gun at some point in the parking lot of the apartment does not change the thrust of the argument related to franks and whether or not the affidavit that was prepared by officer backer was consistent and the reason is that they represented that lester toward me was credible we know if you look at the affidavit compared to the body cam advance or the other officer dawson you will see that  lot several times about who he was where he was going and who he was with and other factors that were important you also see that poll also was not truthful but yet in the representation to a neutral filed and tried to deal with it that way but if you follow up with that and look at the whole mission of all of this information that it take a place initially such as the shooting who was chasing whom one of the other factors i think it ought to be analyzed as an error of law and i think that's where the judge maybe got a little bit off track but i think he did get off track in a case like this pretty easily if you don't have the video at the same time you're listening to the evidence what else to be able to establish this to the court and then make is the ponderous argument so that was it mission standard judge and i think that's what we're saying in this case and it was not simply a fal statement i think you could almost make the argument that it was both that the officer back or when he submitted his affidavit had access to this other information and we're saying is a little bit beyond negligence doubt when he made the statements to the judge later on that afternoon about four o'clock as you know the search warrant didn't get fall into the next day so we know it's late in the afternoon after all of this had occurred that he did so you have to look at both of those the admission and you have to look at the fact that he said a toward the statement it was quote corroborate it and he said that he was reliable there is no way looking at the body cam that you can say that a twenty was reliable but ultimately judge kobe how did you get into his apartment with that information the judge doesn't excise that argument and she does a decent job of that however this is the problem if you pare down what was taken out how did it get into up apartment number seventy of these young men if you consider them reliable he didn't even say that they actually bought drugs from inside the apartment they said they would go in there and remember they've already given several contradictory statements about whether or not they said they were going there or not and finally a toy he says well really old was going there and not him and he was dropping him off to pick this up but if you look at the videos in real time you'll have a good vision of where the discrepancies or current the big question here is what the back  a reliable and if you excise all of that you've consistently said that he'd look just because someone had less than two grams of marijuana in an automobile how do you get into their home if you said he had an id card again  fine him as living at that address i did get him to listen i don't so that's the problem that you have to grapple with when you make this decision we believe that the evidence clearly establishes that and i'm going to hold up because i've been turned down enough afraid scenery but this is a classic case where you get the opportunity to look at in real time what was happening you get a chance to look at the affidavit you get a chance to compare and you go back to what judge grass said if you take a look at those factors you will see this was not only false statement what was the end of her balances but also an admission analysis which we believe we have to look at so for those factors we believe this case  that the did not also mean that the the it was deliberately or recklessly misleading the courts and here we simply do not have that i'll focus on what what are mr shorts complaints about the affidavit statements now at page five of his reply brief he's essentially arguing that if it wasn't captured on camera then this court should not consider there's no case support however for that proposition neither mr shorten or the government is found an often notice that when the when one of the suspects give a statement to police officers they continue asking questions they continue probing trying to make sure that the statement is true if it isn't true or if they're not happy with the answer the officers  then continue to disclose the information that not only to other law enforcement officers the officers summarize what they're hearing from those suspects to try to figure out of the group what is going on here it was an extremely chaotic  knew that any of these individuals had misled police officers initially or had at one point given one story that became another and without proof of that the video standing alone simply don't do the trick you need some  surely thought it was officer miller repeatedly said that that mr short had a pocket full of cash i would point this court to the court statement and technical ordinance which is cited in our brief in the government's plea in that court or in that opinion this court reminded this records and attorneys to view warrants and to paladin and not you in each piece in isolation and doing have been in the apartment at detective back or testified on page thirty nine of the suppression transcript well of marijuana can linger suggesting that more may want marijuana may have been present in the car again we have a gunfight with them when they were there to purchase marijuana all of that suggests into taliban that probable cause would exist regardless of whether this is borne affidavit as modified and for all of those reasons four minutes per bottle it says mr hersh thank you yawners i just like to get back on track here to the search warrant at the court to go to the search warrant i think the government made a decent argument about all the things that led up to the search warrant but really when you focus on the search warrant you have to go back to what judge grassed brought up and that is was it her mission yes everybody has to concede that and the other thing  he provided a false name did not use short as the person he was purchasing drugs from called the easy and we know no names associated with easy he minimize his involvement did not say that short sold him in a marijuana either before or at any point in time never said that any marijuana was in shorts aisles he did not knowing short matter of fact he said always the one who wanted to purchase this marijuana so those are the admissions that's pretty substantial when you're trying to get into someone's home this is the three hundred dollars a judge grass wrote up brought up is that enough there is no case we didn't find a case the government didn't find a case to support that the we don't want them making up stuff we don't want them looking back at the answers are the ones that satisfy them if they're going to go with happy answers they should be and talked about the credibility issues and you should not represent to a neutral finder was go warrant that this is the answer we want it that's why you have a unique opportunity in this case to review this in real time as you see the affidavit when you do that you will opening statement before the co op he is aware back folks like told folks like a toy be don't tell the truth all the time without them telling the truth all the time they need to let a neutral finder and we should this young man should have a hearing and all are asking you reverse let us pursue this in a french hearing and a different result could come about thank you so much and it's always an honor to appear before the school thank