washington i'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal there was no substantial basis for deciding that the search warrant in this case establish probable cause in fact the affidavit in support of the search warrant was so lacking and in this year probable cause  there was no probable cause here anonymous letter totally anonymous saying that two people are drug dealers and the only evidence that they're drug dealers is that the person says are drug dealers and says that they're going to travel to florida and the drive back and the only confirmation the government has is a da surveillance car that's that goes to the airport and sure enough these people do fly don't tell it to florida and drive back happening here three point five yards on right i don't think either of those facts gives a clue about what is happening at thirty twenty five yes place that we know only that someone first i have to correct that while the affidavit from reflects that there are two felony drug convictions there are not actually two family members only one but you have a felony drug conviction and you have that is sixteen years old and you have the address and the registration of a car two factors that are that are utterly innocuous and available in the caribbean who hope that the the drug conviction is not knocked us that that would be the third factor but the address and the registration of the car are factors available in the public domain and the person comes out of the house and gets into this car with you right that's correct now that  share one car well that's a separate inference that's a separate question as to whether they share the car or whether they have access to it they all have access is an arse and clearly had access right we do know that the person got into the car ye are you saying you don't even i mean i would say it's more probable than not made certainly not beyond reasonable doubt or anything but more probable than not if a person comes out of house and enters a car instance and it that's talking about humiliating inference i don't and then of course the the final thing is the you write uses cocaine which which of course he could have had on him from the beginning but we still are sort of slightly changing the  which don't even have to get up to more probable than not i understand it that it that that it creates some suspicion but this is sufficient arises i with the with the u c i whose credibility you don't challenge according to your brief right the c i no we don't jones so he says he was told by his friend he's going to do a drug deal at this house now we don't know whether friend was telling the truth place he sees what something that could be consistent with a drug deal and could not be namely somebody comes out of the house his friend and that somebody go into a car the friend then leaves the car or goes to him and shows him crack right and and the c i knows where crack is and you're and you're not challenging the fact that the cia knows what crack looks like that's correct so i guess one possibility is this is all a anybody go through this elaborate charade of persuading a friend that he has conducted a drug deal why should we assume the facts what really happened here well rather than what really happened here is you saw a drug deal the government has to establish that there's probable cause to search inside the house well i have to do one thing at a time i appreciate that but let's start out with the drug deal so it seems to me that it's probably there is at least probable cause that there was a drug deal you have an honest description of facts that are suspicious and that end up with crack in the hands of the person who we know was ottis that seems like there's a drug or at least probably cause for a drug so now the only remaining question is whether there's probable cause to search the house the drug deal goes down directly in front of the house police officers come and they see the house the car is still park directly in front of the house the or mediately about them the entire supply of drugs they commonly retain much or most of their drug supply in their home well i don't see why that's not probable cause to believe that the home in front of which the drug deal occurred and which not evidence of a drug deal it isn't i cannot stress that enough you have the u i get out of the car the only way that you get to that this is a drug deal is if you believe the words of the you are you you can't get to a drug deal by seeing two people get into a car and one person get out and show crap right that is essentially all we are left with that that would be not be enough certainly the convict somebody but questions watched the counter hypothesis here why didn't the friend go through this elaborate charade to show the c i to actually show him crack which he says he got in the car doesn't seem probable not more likely than not real home about just probable or just an equally likely scenario that the drugs came out of the car no because we don't know with single thing about the u i we don't know if he is an enemy of the perp of someone who lives in the back to gates so again in gates we have a completely anonymous and completely unreliable tip these guys are dealing drugs the only thing they say is something that is not illegal in all they're traveling to florida by plane and they're going to drive back that's all there is and that is all that the police are able to confirm now i don't hear we have quite a bit more no one sees drugs in  in illinois vs case in fact that the supreme court the principal reason the supreme court says this is really credible is quote florida is well known as a source of narcotics well i suppose washington d c is well known as as a location which drugs are dealt if the supreme court's willing to do indict the entire state of florida in that case with one sentence and to rely on it i really don't see how this is any any different they say the court also says this idea of somebody driving down there and then driving back they say is as suggestive of a prearranged drug run as it is of an ordinary vacation trip when we have something just like that here we have somebody getting out of the car out of the house meeting in a car for just a few minutes and then going back to the car and some to go out now that is certainly as suggestive of a drug deal as it is t friends deciding to meet in a car for two minutes i respectfully disagree that all you have in gates is a couple leaving illinois and driving to florida and driving back what else  believe the anonymous letter said that the couple sells drugs you know gave their address so they buy drugs in florida the wife drives down the husband flies back but the anonymous that that those are people who we have no reason to believe are telling the truth in this case we also have to see that the u i saying the same thing he's doing that drugs are being dealt out of this house and going to a drug deal watch me do the drug deal why isn't that the same you say you don't believe the u i he why did the supreme court believe he had completely completely anonymous tip him in gates because police officers corroborated predictive details of the tip and that's why i say it's not as simple as a husband and wife driving to florida and driving back to illinois there there were there were details as to when the husband would go when the wife would go on the right of the last dollar that hit or that there was hundred right and then the police do that right and here the completely anonymous tip of the u i says there's drug dealing in the house and there's going to be a drug deal come with me and watch me do it and in fact the c who has credibility you have accepted and therefore is that is as accepted as the d e a surveillance team any other case goes along and sees just what the friend the u i says is going to happen if something comes out of the house goes in the car got those the u i comes out and he's got drugs now yes we don't know what happened in the car but we know as much about the car as the predictive about the tip that the you'll get the c i is following you go to that house there's absolutely nothing predicted there is the c i doesn't say a man named tom is going to walk out the house and walk down to the car let's suppose you just kind of eliminate the confusion related to you i sent him in c i s most in the same case let's just suppose that a citizen comes up to the detective in service of london show you how easy it is the buy drugs here i'm going to go up to disguise house and buy drugs and everything happens the way that happens check one car license plate in found no everything to be found no would a detective at that point have probable cause to go arrest washington if the detective is right there in that area i don't see why not yes the detective would have probable cause to go arrest washington even though he didn't search the citizen beforehand and therefore doesn't know whether the citizen brought the crack in the drugs and himself well we want to know it wasn't a controlled by he was just the by we refer to this person as a citizen i'm assuming by citizen honest law abiding citizen is what what the court means if it's not that type of citizen which the supreme court his has suggested should be believed by the police not the anonymous tipster so you saying that makes that occasions and therefore is credible and you told me in your brief tells me that you're not challenging his credibility so i don't see why we wouldn't trust his description of what happened for a purpose and probably cause any more than we trust a police officer i guess i'm still having a problem with what his description what is his description of what happened if his description of what happened is a man got a man came out of the house got into a car and the u i got back out of the car after being in up the same person in d c you might have a large percentage of the population with a prior conviction if if that's all we need that allegation of a transaction and someone with a prior conviction to search their house then then i guess for the residents of b c the the war requirement is is different for the residents of illinois or not probable cause that a crime to occur inside of that car and if ultimately the the warrant speaks for itself but there is no way to get to the probability of a crime occurring inside of that car even with a prior criminal conviction sixteen years old i'd almost i'd suggest to the court that if in sixteen years we don't have criminal activity it cuts just as equally in opposite direction that this person is not currently engaged in or in drug trafficking but firm and otherwise innocuous details and no other cooperation by police on that there is cruel activity inside these premises i understand that the court is relying on the officers the inference that the officer would draw if this was indeed a drug transaction that drug dealers have proceeds from their crime or evidence of their crime inside their house but  we don't have identification of the person who got into the car being thomas washington who lives inside the house we don't know who the person is who got inside the car so  draw an inference that that person necessarily lived at the house and got into the car i guess is another stretch it may be more suspicious and suggest more but given that address as his so that doesn't make at least probable that the person who walked out of the out of a residence that tom washington has said is his residence into a car that is registered to tom washington who has been described as tom is the defendant i'm not saying again i'm not more likely than not not beyond reasonable doubt just no i'm ok i'm not prepared to accept that because we don't know who else lives in the house we don't know if there's thomas washington senior thomas walked washington jr week or thomas washington  was going to use a screen coarse language again from gates isn't it and as suggestive that is thomas washington at least as suggestive as it is somebody else who lives in the house if you  if you really you are the person that came out the house is tom and we have no reason to believe that the person the person is identifying is probably we have no reason to probable i'm sorry that i am at a loss to i'm it is impossible for me to say that a person who gets into a car in front of a house that it is probable that that person owns the car and i'm i'm sorry ok credibility of dui statement not just that you know let's assume you're not going to be able to go win the argument about whether this is tom's house or car about what happened in the car because that would that's what ties tom to criminal activity not just that not just an it's his car that it's his house but th some drug transaction happened in the car is that really when everything turns on moving away from the anonymous aspects of the thing in that case the analysis is that a tip has to under the totality of circumstances you have the two factors you have and bases of knowledge and because there is no reason to believe the believe you i that they deal with good and we have no basis of knowledge or understanding how why did you i because he says that the guy's name is tom and that would appear to check out by the cops and i think that's chief judge garlands point because you can connect the house to a tom in the car to a  predictive but yes criminal yes but the second part of gates which which we keep overlooking is th law enforcement corroborated facts they corroborated facts that were predictive that suggested criminal activity what suggested criminal activity the person flies to florida and drives home that's it nothing else that's really criminal i mean to be frank i know a lot of people who fly to florida and drive home sold in the same way that you know people who have sixteen people living in a house and all use the same car lots of people fly in one direction and drive in the other direction why why should in fact have been enough because of the manner in which they did it husband or wife splitting up one going one coming i have to say that in my experience that hours at a motel get in a car and drive back up i think that that is suggestive and i think most police officers would believe that that is unusual if you were defending somebody in those circumstances from a search in the car you would not be making this argument would you you don't think this is enough for reasonable cause search a car new reasonable suspicion to get your car yeah it might be enough for reasonable suspicion but it's certainly not enough for probable cause to search a house so we're taking us a separately yes but here we have a warrant so we're actually and we're not bothering you about the question of probable cause here we're bothering you about the good faith exception so that's that's all we're really asking you about not whether the issues that were raised this morning as well unless the court has particular questions on other matters but it's the government's position in this case that the warrant here did establish a fair probability that evidence of drug dealing would be found at three zero two knowledge that only someone would have that would really know this couple mean how else would they know what this couple was going to do unless they were you to friends with the couple wore had some sort of source for intimate details about this couple's travel plans here the information that was corroborated was information that was information is is not as intimate if you will although i don't go with it he would call it like reservations to travel plans into me either necessarily mean if you if you want to be able to search the internet and f informant knew that tom lived there and that tom would be willing to sell drugs would in fact go through with this transaction that you live in if you let the drugs her out with the anonymous informant so you know this informant must have known enough about the facts of the man's life to know that he was going to walk out of the house and get into a car with him it's not like they that that's true and but i think it again we have no direct observation of what occurred inside the car but we have i think a very strong where of circumstantial information that does corroborate with me they go there lo and behold a person named tom at that address the news place comes out they have a quick meeting very quick and then the u i exits the car goes and immediately  i and displays a white rock substance that the cia and recognizes to be crack cocaine i mean i think here you have a very strong prediction if you i that this person at this premises will be able to supply me with drugs that's what i would want to come and watch me buy those drugs and that is exactly what happened and so it's not on all fours and all the particulars but the type of corroboration that we have here we would submit is as strong or stronger than occurred in gates because here you have the police officers who based upon obtaining the information from the c i the police officers did in fact corroborate that someone named tom lived at that premises and the the vehicle with a particular license plate the cadillac did in fact registered to some thomas washington at that yes place address and so that we submit is the type of corroboration of granite innocent details but it was by law enforcement that what the u i had said was in fact accurate and i would now gys to this court case and laws which was the case where there was a report that people were still selling drugs out of a holiday inn and there were two individuals and the police corroborated that report by checking the records of the holiday inn and in fact confirming that these two particular individuals were staying at the hotel at that relevant time and that's standing alone a piece of criminal detail but it is corroborating the predictive detail that it was was provided by the source of of information in that case and i think that's very similar here to police observe some people talking in somebody the one of the people one of the two people isn't and has a prior drug conviction they know that i'm not talking about the validity of the terry stop i'm talking about after the terry stop one individual who was half the party to the conversation in the form terry stalk him and find crack one there's aren't there lots of basis to further investigate and then from there if they found some additional information that corroborated drug dealing then then they could proceed to probable cause but i think that would be a closer terri situation even for the second person hasn't the supreme court said that there's a material difference as far as reliability goes of statements against people interest that are truly in  supposed to incorporating someone else absolutely that's true it's always more reliable if you're in completing yourself but i think in a case like this so there's no presumption of reliability of oh that statement we would argue would come in under for example that hearsay exception and that would be you know the case there are cases all over the map on that point but i think in in our case judge i think one thing that's important is  and this is where i think the government and the appellant here disagree we don't think that this case completely hinges on hearsay from the u i we have direct observations that were made by a reliable confidential informant case where a confidential informant said i bought drugs from these two people and the affidavit also said and we know that we the police know that these particular people are drug users and the supreme court said that to yeah there was enough and there was there was no control by there was no surveillance or anything else those two facts were enough were probably because they had current information that's not what i'm saying at all but i think that here what we have is a general statement we have specific information and we have this happening within a fairly short span of time and we submit that that is enough for a think that here there is a fair amount of cooperation and we also think that there is a reliable considerately reliable confidential informant who observed this in plain view and we submit  that combination of circumstances is not too worried of permits of the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress in this case your own if the court has no further questions we thank the court and portrayal of the evidence that the affidavit reflects that the drug transaction took place within the last seventy two hours it is not a fair reading of the affidavit the affidavit says what it says it says that clearly that the police officer spoke with the confidential informant within the last seventy two hours i think it's telling that officers begin all of their police reports and all of their testimony look time date and location and there is no time date or location of this alleged transaction even if you take everything that you are says is true no reasonable police officer no well trained police officer would believe that there was probable cause in this search warrant because we don't know the time and it's also conspicuous that that at the time is left out either the officer knows the time and doesn't want to say because it is far off or intentionally leaves it off for some other named live there the only representation being that he that this was a dress he gave eleven years before that's not the same question as whether or not the deal went down within seventy affiant the confidential informant is providing that information information that is recent here the difference is you have taking let's take everything that you i said this is true and and and assume that there's a drug transaction in a car you have that after the c i reporting activity a transaction not drugs inside of the house and i think that that is that's a big difference because as you know timing is important for search warrants you have to take a second step in order to infer that evidence of drug transactions will be in the house and that second st the knowledge and experience of the police officer the knowledge of the experiences of the police officer is that drug dealers keep proceeds of their crime in their house so you have to determine that the person who got into the car is a drug dealer and not a one time drug transaction all we know even if you take everything you i said is the deal with good we don't know whether the deal was tom and i know what drugs together and he's going to give me my shirt now we don't know if the deal is i gave him his share of it is it is we don't know it is  the next paragraph says the c i been provided me the more complete information and in that more complete information the facts are laid out or why the c i a is why not who pollution at the top of the supreme court  so i would submit that that statement means nothing the court can take nothing from that to determine timing in this case i'm no reasonable police officer would believe reading this it may be fair reading though not the only one that the report and the observation occurred within the last three days that may have been a fair reading in that case because of the facts of that case and because of what was reported it is not a fair hours i spoke with the c r the c i told me this story about i don't know no no that's not that's not accurate i don't think so i don't think right no he had contacted him within the last seventy two hours about observing he didn't say that he observed it within the last three hours and that's the inference the court draws he just  athlete within the last seventy two hours and then goes on to tell the story of this activity so the question is when was this activity but you have the secondary question of does this activity establish that the person who got into the car is an organ going drug dealer and a single transaction this court and no court has found that a single transaction even if even if we say that there was an exchange for