good afternoon john ballasts on behalf of the defendant kendall thrift i'm intending knew a preserve two minutes for rebuttal thrifts primary claim in this appeals that the search warrant affidavit for an eldorado hill's house lacked probable cause to search it for drugs or firearms and the affidavit was so deficient that no reasonable officer could reasonably rely on the warrant the affidavit contain lots of evidence that a nother individual jeremys was involved in drug trafficking marijuana trafficking in particular but it had very little evidence linking it to the particular house where the search warrant was asked for a seven seventy three shoreline point in all the hills the evidence with respect to that house consisted primarily of two two areas one was a g p s tracking  vehicle and then repeatedly stop at the house for several hours at a time and then second one particular occasion on april ninth when the vehicle was tracked to the house officers went to the house they saw as dan entered the cell and he was there for several hours and then at four thirty five in the afternoon he entered the vehicle left and then fifteen minutes later his vehicle was stopped and they found three packages with brown wrapping paper u p s packages one that contained fifteen point six pounds of marijuana so why isn't that enough it's not it's not enough because no reasonable officer reasonably prudent officer could conclude that there was evidence of marijuana trafficking in the shoreline point residence  in particular one thing that seems to strike out to me is significant is the fact that the officer is reported observing on enter the vehicle and that april ninth leaving the  residence but not mentioning that he was carrying any and he boxes or any packages in this case in particular there were three packages of fifteen pounds each which likely would even take two trips not mention that it also the affidavit does not mention that the vehicle went straight was stopped directly fifteen minutes later in did not stop any were on the way and in those circumstances we contend that no reason we prudent officer could believe that there was probable cause to find marijuana or marijuana evidence of marijuana trafficking in the eldorado hills residence and then the second claim here is a frank's claim and that the franks motion listed four specific  areas we believe that there were either false statements or missions that were made recklessly or intentional way and the claim is that the district court erred by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing and the four particular points were won the officer said that the vehicle design was driving was registered to him when it was registered to his girlfriend second the officer said in his affidavit that the vehicle was tracked through g p s to the residence at seven seven three shoreline point drive when in fact it was actually tracked through g p s to three different addresses near that residence and probably in the same street but not at that residence third the affidavit didn't state other places omitted information where the vehicle was tracked to in that fo the the affidavit omitted information that at the time of the arrest of design on april ninth the affidavit says that he has two sets of keys but it didn't state that the key neither set of keys unlocked the went to the residence of shoreline point and that the garage opener i didn't access that as well and these that  significant and these are all significant because the evidence was attempting to show that the officer concluded that the shoreline point residence was a stash house or a suspected stash house good afternoon justin lee for the united states may please the court the search warrant for the shoreline point residence was based on probable cause however this court need not find probable cause this court need only find a substantial basis for the reviewing judge to find probable cause and here there was more than a substantial basis parolees on was stopped after leaving the shoreline point residence law enforcement searched his car and found three large brown boxes with u p s labels for different locations canine alerted to those packages and the first package was opened and found it contained fifteen pounds of process marijuana in vacuum sealed bags there are no further questions from the court all submit the remainder of my time well but how do you distinguish green street green street dealt with a suspected drug dealer based on a prior conviction there was no indication of an active drug trafficking operation of that he was involved and it dealt with one visit without any more evidence about any more involvement with that particular residence in this case there was evidence of an active drug trafficking operation when zohn was first stopped officers looked at his phone they found text messages indicated that he was involved in manufacturing and distributing marijuana and that there were others involved further they found large pictures of large quantities of marijuana large quantities of cash and firearms two searches of john's house did not turn up large quantities of marijuana large amounts of cash or firearms and about hair and hair and dealt in a similar fashion with a person that was suspected of being involved in drug trafficking based on his prior criminal history he had prior manufacturing of marijuana convictions in that particular case there was no evidence of an actual involvement bucks who was the focus of the investigation was seen on heron farm on i want to kasian and on that basis of the relationship the prior criminal history and the one time box was on heron's farm they applied for a search warrant here again there was that there was evidence of an active s in terms of the franks argument in fact omitted yes you're on and i gather you're pretty your argument is that it was not prejudicial yes your hon first with respect to the registration the registration stated in the affidavit that the car was registered to zhan there were two reports written after that search warrant that indicated the registration was for his girlfriend alexis that fact was different in the affidavit the other items were speculation that were not supported by an offer of proof so they were not involved in the affidavit however there's been no substantial preliminary showing that there was in fact any basis respect to the hearing the case i don't think it's accurate to state that the marijuana farmer in that case mr buck went to visit just one time to mr heron residence and that case what the facts were is that the there were two marijuana growers two bucks and one marijuana farm and that they had evidence that there was marijuana  planted hidden underneath corn mr heron who was had a prior marijuana conviction was a relative related to the bucks when they went to officers went to the hair and residence  and looking for mr buck mr buck was there in told the officers that he was staying at the residence so that's more than just a one time visit he was there for a substantial period of time and then he was staring staying there to grow corn which is the exact same thing that they were had evidence that he was growing marijuana under the corn at his residence so i think that case is is it's much more substantial and they found not only no probable cause but also no reasonable officer could rely on a warrant with respect to the franks points i wanted to just to go briefly on why i think each of them are prejudicial with respect to the registration of the vehicle belonging in the name of his girlfriend rather than mr desire on that suggests that at best for the government both people are using the vehicle that other occasions when the vehicle was tracked to the residence that the girlfriend may have been going there or they may have gone as a couple for social occasions but that was not it was admitted from the affidavit it was false  and it was false in a way that lesson that increase probable cause for the government with respect to the omissions or the false statements that the vehicle was tracked to seven seventy three shoreline point rather than near the residence that's also prejudicial because on the april ninth date they told the issuing judge that there was three fifteen pound boxes of marijuana coming from  that they said they contended were coming from that house well if the vehicle was parked a distance away from the house it was less likely that there was any kind of transfer of big boxes from from the house to the vehicle and so that the affidavit in the report states a correctly that the vehicle was seen at the shoreline point area on a number of occasions then when they get to the affidavit they of record page fifty five their police report says that one location the vehicle was travels was tracked it was what at one time at one location a vehicle was tracked several times in the area of shoreline point the way that the context of that statement indicates that they knew the vehicle was tracked to other locations and they probable cause and lastly with respect to the set of keys and garage door opener that did not work at the shoreline point residence the whole conclusion that the government asked the magistrate judge to to come to was that that was a stash house that he had access to and the fact that they said he had two sets of keys but didn't tell the issuing judge that neither one of them went to that house