morning your honors also in may it please the courts my name is ed blouse and i represent the appellant jared brooke in this matter i was appointed pursuant to the c j act both in the district court level and in front of this court and this is my st oral argument before this court your honor this st amendment and this th amendment litigation began with our motion to suppress what we felt was a bad inventory search of a vehicle in which my client was a passenger the government responded at the district court level and when the government responded they gave short shrift to the inventory search in my opinion and then focused on what they believed was a proper probable cause search they haven't pursued inventory search on appeal of the there's there's one footnote i believe on page fourteen your honor where they mention it and they say they still believe according to the footnote that it was a good inventory search if if your honour's want me to move beyond inventory searching go into probable cause of course i'm more than happy to do that thank you the government has argued that there was probable cause because my client was implicated in a burglary eight days before and based on his two coconspirators they said that he had a couple of guns magazines the nd reason the government is is because my client's was stated to be a transients by one of the coconspirators in the rd reason is because my client allegedly fled when he came into contact with law enforcement we have to look at each one of those individuals i believe because obviously this is a did novo review and says in looking at of course the factual findings are for clear air but in looking at the district court's ruling it with based on the police reports that were submitted and he went based on argument of counsel he really didn't see it nobody requested any further testimony and the reason why i think that is significant is this is that for this th amendment review we have to look at a reasonably or excuse me an objective lee reasonable officer and whether or not he or she would feel like they have probable cause one thing that i think it's very important to look at your honour's is that the entire record this arrest in this search not a single office anywhere ever said they believe there was probable cause not a single one ever gave a reason why they felt there was probable cause when my client was arrested and law enforcement went directly to do we care about that because court's going to have to rule all i can do as my client's attorney is look at the facts as they are and and of course argue that the three reasons the government gave why there was probable cause i'm pointing out to the courts that the facts on the ground don't seem to back up the government's arguments and with respect to my client allegedly having these guns based on the word his two the government relied on the miles case in the miles case was a search warrant case where eighteen days passed between a reliable confidential informant who gave law enforcement the place where the guns would be or the contraband would be a search warrant was issued and the defendants filed a motion to suppress in the court overruled that reason i think that's important is this of course is a did novo standard and in that particular case the this court was reviewing the granting of a search warrant by the attached magistrate i don't believe that that with respect to the government says the government's argument here that those two things are equal i believe that a higher standard is different than this there are different aspects as to who probable cause to search a place st is probable cause to believe that your client had guns the two things one the number of guns that were stolen that my client was involved in it was it was a long gun several pistols and several magazines eight days had passed i don't think it's reasonable to believe that somebody involved in a burglary eight days later would have that contraband still on them and i believe the government's position that well he was a transients so it would make sense that transit issue goes to where he would keep them rights to issues does he have them and is that is there a likelihood that they would be in this vehicle because i want you to distinguish between those two because when you're saying there wasn't even probable cause to believe he had guns then the press then you're talking about earlier fifteen day gap would seem to refute your argument that there was probable cause the difference in that case and this one is in that case at least as you described it the informant said he had the guns in this particular place i think where he lived and we don't have that here we don't know we're missing rest least it's a separate question whether there's reason to believe they're in the vehicle but i don't see how you can argue that there isn't probabl cause to believe that he said those weapons still even eight days later how many how many were stolen for that were attributed to him six and it was conflicting testimony basically two short guns and maybe one long gun in and  corresponding magazines and bullets and that sort of thing i don't think i understand your honour's point i i disagree just from the sense of based on the totality of the record and based on the government's position they never argued that he had them on his person they argued that he had them in the vehicle they also argued that that was likely because he was a transit when they looked into when law enforcement actually looked into the pick up they didn't see my found inside behind the seats wrecked and the reason why i keep going back to to what a reasonable officer objectively reasonable officer would believe is that in this particular instance i have to assume for argument's sake that the officers who were there were reasonable and i realize that looking back and reviewing this based on a cold record and based on what we see the totality of the circumstances to be we may be able or that may be able to be found but the actual officers at the scene gave no indication that they believe that while i understand that this is a did know were view judge russell himself said that he felt this was what he said to be a close call i believe it's somewhat of a close question i believe that on foresman did not have probable cause to search the u haul i believe that that had they believe they would have they could have either asked for a warrant or they could have come up with some kind of rationale they did not do that i don't believe the  let me let me ask you about probable cause issued this way what they said on your review of the record do you think was the weakest link in the probable cause determination what should we d really be focusing in on i believe the rd prong that the government put forward that my client fled is extraordinarily weak there was absolutely zero evidence my client new law enforcement was surveilling this residence there was no evidence that law enforcement that he knew law enforcement was there he did not flee until he was caught inside one of the apartments and he tried to get away my client had a methamphetamine addiction he had been involved in a burglary and he sees a bunch of cops of course he's going to take off but i believe that that it is extremely tenuous to say that he fled and tried to get away from that pickup truck where he knew the contraband was when he was in in an apartment maybe one hundred thousand one hundred and fifty feet away on the nd floor that just does not seem to be a realistic argument put forth by the government  let me ask you a question about that i have a question about the record that one point in your brief there on page three there is reference to an informant telling the in the truck would it shouldn't make it does it make a difference whether he driving at or was a passenger to the probable cause  determination i don't believe so i believe that that he would have the same expectation of privacy regardless and well i'm i'm i'm not talking about his expectation i'm talking about the officers  where the officers had more reason to think that the stolen guns were in the you because he was driving it as opposed to being a passenger i think it would give them less reason to believe there was probable cause because he was the passenger it would seem that the woman who was driving the lexus woods if she were driving it it would seem that she would be more i guess in control of the vehicle then mr bro would be all right well then that really brings me back to my question because if d an informant had seen him driving the truck having that kind of control over the truck that may be an important fact and my question is whether the record clearly establishes that is that in the record that someone's i mean it's in your brief that i have i've been having trouble finding it in the record but you know on your hon serves it was the confidential informant said that he was seen in the you all vehicle it took to my memory i do not believe that there was evidence or or that anybody said that my client was actually seen driving the vehicle of course i can go back and find out here in a moment but i don't believe that's the case well we can keep checking but i had a question about that statement in your brief yes you are thinking going to have about two minutes left m the court stephen carter on behalf of the united states to try would you please clarify this last issue i was just about to get to that the record citation be page seven the volume one of the on the record on appeal and the quote would be  we were also told that he had been driving a quote you whole pick up close quote who who said that was a prime the report of investigator mike shark and was he on the scene and officers on the scene i mean there's there's some evidence tying him to the truck that was unknown at the time of the search for example that he had rented and he was the person who had rented the you hall so  officers at the scene is there anything in the records show that the officers on the scene have any information that the defendant had been driving the you haul while he was not on the scene at the very beginning when they st saw him pulling up as a passenger investigator sharp according to his report was there whenever they were trying to coax mr brooke down from the from the roof which occurred prior to the search of the pickup so he was present before this pick up with search that was sharp did you say yes investigator  uses whenever it examining probable cause the question is whether there's probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances in fact the supreme court recently as recently as district of columbia he was we had is counseled against  cause rd to correct the record with it as to what was in the bed of the pick up the record actually indicates there was items in the back of the pickup one of the items the police recorded was a shoe box that i believe had a magazine or had  tion in it that was in the back of the pickup now it's true the reports don't see exactly what the condition of the pick up was and if there were clothes in there or if there were bags but it does  items of evidence are of value said either bullets or magazines were located as shoe box in the back of the pickup and as far as judge matheson's question with regard to the weakest link mr ball's response that flight was weakest link i'll concede byt is probably the weakest link it's the cherry on top of the sundae of the probable cause analysis the supreme court and husky in this court and taylor and ray has explained that flight not your statement the assertion that he wasn't playing from the vehicle it's questionable at the time the police searched the vehicle they had talked to the manager of the property they had talked to the resident or the tenant of the apartment in which mr brooks had initially been found and both of them said that he was not supposed to be in that part and that apartment building or in that apartment that supposed to be it was banned from it or it was in a tent when he was not a tenant but both of them i believe it said he was not supposed to be there i mean does that mean the records not clear as to what that means my guess would be he was never invited and he was never asked to come in  allowed to come and as far as the what the tenants said he said that he had been at work and he had left his apartment lot and that because it was locked and nobody else thought he somebody must be in there  what mr brooks had done as he had put between himself and the pickup truck not just one locked door but two locked doors police before they encountered him had to go through to lock doors one that had a he to the other they had to breach and fact he was jumping in and out of windows by the time the police broke through that door going out of apartments and on roofs until he finally surrendered on the opposite side of the building he was trying to distance himself from that pickup truck so there was the ice so that there was evidence he was visiting someone in the apartments but there was nothing to connect him to these requirements the only evidence connecting him to that address and there was no evidence connecting him to a specific apartment but the only evidence to connect him to that address was the same confidential informant that said that they had seen him driving the whole pickup truck and it was that he frequented that  address they didn't say he frequented a specific partment which is why they had to go through apartment by apartment looking for that but it doesn't seem like there's any evidence that he exited the pick up because he was concerned about ups there's pick up well he was going he clearly was going away from the pickup truck it wasn't going towards the vehicle that he had been driving in the seven days earlier so it would have made a lot of sense if he's trying to get away from the cops anyway i think i'll run into the parking lot of it while you're into that pickup so they can follow me driving the pickup or whatever anyway i have here i would suggest that it might make less sense if you're trying to evade cops to go on foot than trying to get in a vehicle that can go much faster i mean mr prager just getting back i think to the basic question why was it reasonable for the officers to think that there were stolen guns in the in the you when you help pick pulls up is what is the driver  passenger he gets out from all outward appearances it looks like she's just giving him a ride home so what or what is the chain of reasoning to the conclusion that stronger that came from an informant is that correct that's correct your honor that's and so and they knew that at the time there was the fact that he had been a passenger in the pickup truck there was no indication that they had found any guns or any evidence of the evidence of the burglary in the apartment where he had hidden himself he at least had entered they had already arrested him by the point that they searched the pickup truck would have done a search incident to arrest no evidence on him you start narrowing the scope of places where the evidence could be and then you addition you add to that the fact that he had the head had the vehicle for at least more than one day multiple days and had been driving it all of that provides a reasonable probability that the evidence would be in that truck now it's very possible that the evidence might be also in another location but this court in the context of in the context of probable causes explain the decreases the likelihood that his possessions would be or anything that he was continuing to carry would be in a house that he owned or in a another vehicle that he would have owned you start eliminating those places and so his transients with the fact that he had this truck previously and the intervening it is would further bolster around in which he was a passenger of they look at the apartment where he was discovered for weapons is there any indication record about sorry i apologize is there anything in the record to show that the officers after he had been in one of the partners there that they looked in the apartment and found no weapons there there is no indication they conducted an extensive search there is this report say that they sweeps trying to find before they entered into it before they reached the door of the bathroom and there is not any indication which you would expect in a report that the got any guns were found in that