behalf of koko the warrant in this case was not supported by sufficient probable cause to allow officers to search the have adopted street house in order for probable cause to exist the court cases require a substantial nexus of c trina suspected criminal activity and a place to be searched in other words the affidavit must describe why officers believe that the article saw are at a particular place they don't fled the scene or read camaro he was arrested in front of the after dark and street house while arriving as a passenger in a white nissan and the right camaro was also parks there from the face of the war at the address list contraband would be found inside the house for example the warrant does not suggest that mr carro ever went into the average aga house that he lives there or that his wife live there or that any of his family members live there or that law case i understand your your criticism of the warrant but don't you think there was sufficient probable cause based on the telly what they knew even though it didn't make it into the warrant i mean there are a lot of other facts that were facts relevant to the probable cause determination that were not included in the warrant but i think that actually cuts against the government in this case because under the good faith and alice says it's important to encourage officers  right and so you can go outside the four corners of purposes like that are there any such facts in this case i think i'm still not entirely sure that i understand the question i think what you're saying is that if officers deliberately was held information that would be relevant to the probable cause determination is that relevant to good faith you understand my question ok i mean i  don't don't we know from the affidavit that within four hours maybe less than that of the incident that the defendant was at the house and went he at that house a car that had been involved in the incident the far that had been driven from the incident was at the house isn't that a significant connection to the house maybe not enough for probable cause but enough for good faith and the decent will have why don't you what to focus things is my account correct don't we know that within four hours the person involved was at this house and the car involved was at this house i am looking at the warrant here and i don't see the exact time frame but i do agree with you that the recommend was found you had the information at least an hour before the affidavit was presented to the prosecutor so let's say three hours is that a fair inference that's short yes ok and isn't that enough connection example and john where the house and a storage unit that wasn't to be searched actually belonged to the suspect but this court said you know when officers don't actually explain they don't link the reason why suspected contraband would actually be in a particular place but that's not enough even under good faith and alice says well i th authorization to search the whole foods i mean i i think it's just it's very tenuous i don't think there's even a minimal nexus to the house other than that's where the person was arrested and where he returned to his car and i think that the logical inference here of going back to some language from roland is that you know mr cotto drove over there got into another car went and stashed maybe had a gun or other contraband  thought that i mean i think the government's what they thought they got there came to judge the judge's commonsense and say how did this other person happen to arrive with a different car shortly after the accident wasn't there some communication a phone call or a text message and wouldn't checking the cell phone to corroborate that wouldn't that be useful without going to into searches seek a cell phone i need to that even if that would be a logical inference there's nothing to show that that's actually what happened and there's nothing to show that that's what officers believe happened i mean it's possible that the wife was nearby and saw the incident happen maybe they have some other way of communicating and the might of our the other point is that the house was a mr curtis house and presumably the cell phone would have been on his person and authorizing officers to search a person's authorizing the seizure of the cell phones and actually searching them in our cases they hold that any search of the cell phones has to be reasonable so if you start looking at the cell phone and you immediately see that it's belongs to someone else you better stop searching that cell phone isn't that required by our president i think you believe that's correct but i think even the authorization to seize cell phones other than left his getaway car there and then returned to that location hours later suggest that the op a dr house was a safe location for him a place where he believed that he could avoid apprehension by law enforcement taken the government doesn't believe that that is possible because we know that cotto exhibited a desire to flee from a violent crime and he drove to the opera doc now at that point it's possible that a person that's correct you are but we believe that if he if you think that it did desire to avoid law enforcement apprehension no reasonable person would return to their getaway vehicle hours later and and so reaction and that's why he chose the location of the mystery for me here is appears that the officers had a lot more information that would create situation because of course there's an incentive for officers to include this type of information because it would support probable cause although cotto has not conceded that these additional pieces of evidence would support probably cause the four items court concluded that there was not a substantial nexus based on the fact that the government as outlined regarding the flights iaapa dock out and then returning those facts certainly establish a minimal nexus between kowtows crimes and the that shows that was a minimal nexus between kowtows crimes and the minimal nexus standard is for good faith not for probable cause right that's correct  interested in is did the officer act appropriately and by consulting with the attorney that shows that the officer had a faithfulness to complete the work process appropriately do we know whether the officer actually read the affidavit or show duty that at that time you know again i'm recalling the testimony i believe it was just that the judge who was on duty that day i don't believe that the detective made any special there's no there's no testimony that the detectives specifically chose  the prosecutor the testimony indicates that that detective marouf who was the athlete in this case was was involved in the investigation on the scene at some point but was then directed to go back to his warrant it was your own i believe the testimony of that detective who hope was still in his office or actually he may he may have had to drive that he may have gone to the scene and then drove back to his office for the purpose of dra lousy affidavit and so there's not probable cause that you still would have been discovered if the judge today asked questions and i would revise the affidavit including all my information that's  st i would say that there's always we always want detectives to properly complete their affidavits and include all pertinent information but there is an inherent incentive in every case to not leave helpful facts out and consider the facts of souza which is the courts one of the course main notable discovery cases in that case officers had a box that had been alerted to by a narcotics dog the box was set aside to get a search warrant  i'd like to briefly just address the issue of the fact that the warrant was reviewed by an attorney and i'd like to draw the court's attention to the united states versus gonzales case where this issue was specifically discussed that he says alliance while officers are generally entitled to rely on the magistrate's judgment they are also required to exercise their own professional judgment and law enforcement officers are presumed to have a reasonable knowledge of the law doctrine just doesn't apply in the situation this court's notable discovery cases cover circumstances where an independent party would have uncovered the evidence this is actually a supreme court case and next on the where the plane you doctrine would have applied where an inventory of a later inventory vehicle search would have uncovered the evidence but in this case there is no independent line of investigation that would have encouraged the evidence and  sousa case and also the christie case the inevitable discovery doctrine was acquired because officers jumped the gun without a warrant and the factors that were applied under souza were factors that went to the her determination that her word would have issued based on the probable cause that the officers have at the time but that's not the circumstance that we have here it's a very different situation i'm a search situation that involves very