that they had done nothing improper you know except were failing to give marine or the court finds at the time of questioning the tip in and by the police the defendant's statements were not when you look at when there are any ok there are two statements and one can say so there are only two statements that we're dealing with the first statement is in the answer to the question exactly exactly now ordinarily if you for instance if our officer stopped meat and said if you buy super that from wal mart and i can add and i said yes that wouldn't be  wal mart and put it in your medicine cabinet or your kitchen cabinet what does that tell you but that wasn't the question ok it was only the question only i get in here my point that doesn't call for in committee that's what makes it look like it is an increment calls for incriminating answer is the fact that the officers who know that this man has a history of buying wives lots quantities testified he was familiar with them that he had a history of math convictions i believe and that he knew about his history of buying a suit so you know that he had one conviction or two convictions or three or non ari i don't know asking him without giving him random warnings for it is it would fall under in this circumstance fall under a question that asks for an incriminating answer that's that's my the and where is that also could call for incoming answer given these circumstances but asking for consent to search is non testimonial and it the answer to those two statements would be in violation of millenium but not the answer to the question can i search where can i go get that it's not just me so actually the the court's finding the actual findings and findings about credibility the court gave credibility to the officers to testify and here are the circumstances that this and dependent was fifty nine at the time moorings he is legally arrested his hand caught the officers and and the defendant have prior experience with law enforcement he seems there's no was work pm the officers did not go they didn't even go up and knock on the defendant's residence they may ask their brother the defendant's brother who was outside would you go get it so the brother opened the door and and don't let him to come out because the police are here so he can't they don't even go up to the residence the defendant is arrested on the border for failure here and he is again caught and the two questions only two arrested on a warrant and there's there's no evidence of any worse they ask him to question did you buy the suit where as those of the two questions so there's no  the search to the medicine cabinet or the cabinet in the kitchen to that one spot only to get the cigarette and there is no general because if he knew he could get a woman to consent so in the sense that it wasn't worse and that's that's what the score is looking at did anything that the officers learn from the time that was it was a the basis of find that his statements are the true statements were involved and so for that reason this court should reverse the court below find that the statements were voluntary and then in that the  but he was there and then a point where you had a legal consent and right to be and he saw it in plain view he didn't touch him he didn't seize them he left them in the cabinet then they anything else sooner than in the trial just didn't believe you know he can go go either way that doesn't spell a problem for the state's case and let me explain there's the limited search i which i kind of doubt but may know it took two hours and then they kept him from the trailer for two hours no i don't know i don't know ok i don't know that but what i'm saying is the taking of the keys if it occurred ok so i thought that happened before the limited search no it did ok i do not think that the record will look at the record see whatever the records are from what i can tell the defendant even crediting the defendant's testimony that he did that occurred after he had used general consensus or to the taking of the keys and so that was a that is subsequent to the e lived with him was outside when the police arrived there were three officers that arrived the agent fisher especially to converse and agent on staff they came to the house as his brother knew he was home and  him outside so donald hollered in for his brother who came outside at that point that's all that happened there were three officers there and the two that the two men the two brothers he asked he arrested the defendant did not tell him did you buy the pills today he said yes and he said where are they he said i never saw him now because of the smallness of the trailer the medicine cabinet is apparently in the kitchen he asked if he could go in and get them and my clients not his brother were standing there also testified in the suppression hearing that his brother said no agent bashir apparently walked in and my client hollered at his brother to go in and after the officer was going you know that's where the dispute in facts are the big this sometimes made it difficult kept the police to follow as to questioning suspects after ticketing detention arrests these are somewhat complex circumstances here which could be trying to for the officers no matter how good their intentions however the rules are clear arrest record the oral record versus in the written order the judge stated he doesn't fault the officers because everything that they have rules have been changed so many times regarding arrests of dependents questioning random warnings and all of that that they could be confused basically with what's going on he didn't think that the officers came with the malicious intent to circumcise circumvent home constitutional rights the officers went there after receiving the call of the with the intention to do that there are cases i'm sure out there were the officers have every intention to violate the individual's constitutional rights that's not the case here the case here is that they went there to do the search he didn't give consent they the defendant's brother thing i am very defendant ask his brother told his brother lock the door so that's how the door was locked it was after he had gone in first time according to the defendant and his brother without consent at some point during this first time in the house and coming out the door being locked defendant's son was brought to the house in a police car he had been stopped a few streets over because the mr to my client and they thought that was the defendant the council thought there's about four officers there's a master sergeant warrant into the house who is apparently another expert and not manufacturing then and the other officers came with the defendant's son the defendant son is ordered to stay in the said he didn't give him random because he was being arrested for an outstanding warrant he didn't know yet there were going to be charges when he came out of the house the only thing he had was the same thing that he knew was in there only got to the house if that makes sense he didn't he didn't have any other information if he didn't know when he got to the house that he was going to arrest the defendant who were looking to him for manufacturing and other items in his house he didn't know that when he or maybe didn't how long is a box if you have a cold supposed to last well it depends on the box make them into this because of this case and you can buy them in several different  or believe your answers and do not believe the defendants at all there was no written and so there was no miranda warnings there was no smell no anybody after the fact there was nothing that could give you from the outside any they did not tell him why he was arrested i can only assume that he knew he had an outstanding warrant most people do for a traffic violation the officers are here they arrest him he didn't think he was doing anything wrong by purchasing one now the other i don't to go with that or the other argument to go with that is that none of the other items in the manufacturing were found in the home that would get the whole process started at that point now granted in the defendant's argument they defendants testimony we wouldn't be here the defendant said i don't give consent limited or otherwise no consent ever it would have been and legal search the limit to the reason i'm piecing it together this way is because the court said i don't find any fault with the officers no significant lack of diligence are professional performance or any articles or any barcus in this ok if the court had credited the defendant the order wouldn't been this way the order wouldn't been considered when you're in there was a miranda violation because the court would have aquash the search warrant  green on june fifteenth july fifth and then we also know that he just purchased it on july twenty fifth so we have three purchases of the officers interest in this particular then it began that day because of a report from a walgreens employee that he come in and purchased sudafed him there before they when they found out that the defendant was shows you know so yes he they were investigating a meth violation and so for that reason you know like i said or in the beginning for that reason the circumstances