those sections that are contended to be false are excised whether the affidavit otherwise supplied us probable cause and if you look at the nine objectionable that and then it said what was later to be determined to be explosives and then paragraph forward says i know the explosion occurred are there any other portions that were that are missed i don't see that in africa tach mitzi affidavit i just see paragraph three where it says they responded that's a paragraph three of the affidavit as far as i can tell unless we're looking at two different documents but it's none the those are the two statements right by the a t f that an explosives incident occurred and that she could not even say that there was an explosion and the reason i want to emphasize that i have one of respect for government go in in addition to that there is no other payments to the interior of the apple there's no fuses or detonation the touch those types of things that would be an explosion so somebody might have actually just spread animal parts in this seems to me that what a body said at the suppression hearing as to what he meant by it being later determined if you start with the scene that looked very much like an explosion that's why a t f was called in  when body was working on this report ever for a way that was he was trying to get the average to be done a timely fashion because of the concern about what else may happen and he says what he meant by it was later determined he meant that they had been determination implicit in that it seems to me as the judge trail was the operative decision maker was deciding a bodyguard or nobody back to you but only got ahead of himself thinking from what he knew this was an explosion rushing to get the affidavit done and without being reckless but being careless not closing the loop but calling the scene and he made this he made this representation it seems to me that is one way to look at it and you say that you quibble sounds like i'm dismissing it you argue about the the standard review for us but it doesn't mean this is a fact finding on what was in bodies head when he did as it was he intentionally misstating was a reckless and not double said he's sad without giving any kind of time reference and he's got a machine we don't know anything anything else our argument is that statement while warning was there information about a threat the night before a threat to the strange way yes there were in the vehicle which you use the word vandalizing the vandalized vehicle belonging to the strange way it  consider the other factors is sufficient for your bones case the best bare bones case for you the best the best case to say that it's bare bones and shouldn't be considered have another question if you if you were saving argument that you were to prevail would the result be that we would remain and not not say that it should be suppressed but remain for further proceedings like in the name or case the court counsel my name is men young grouping and i represent the united states attorney's office for the western just give louisiana i would like to start at the end with the bare bones argument i think that with all due respect to the magistrate judge i believe he was misinterpreting the barebones case law as i read it it is talking about conclusionary statements by the agent not just limited factual assertions maybe he didn't i don't know how much more facts could be put on that bone he called mr obama called his sister in law and said if your sister comes home she is going to be blown up i don't see how that's bare bones i mean did he want to know the color of the tell i don't mean to be sarcastic but he didn't need to have the color of the telephone call i mean i don't know how that could be that's not a conclusionary statement that is a fact that is reporting what mr womack said to threaten his wife i thought the issue was whether or judge said that the statement about the the sister in law statement or the statement to the sister lie scuse me was bare bones ok but can you talk about the other part yes ma'am first i would point out that that argument was not made below by the defendant he did not say that the informant for lack of a better word was lacking in credibility or did not provide enough detail their permission and perhaps that's because we learned at the detention hearing that it was the defendant's own brother who was the concerned individual and it would make sense that for the sake of family harmony you wouldn't want to be attacking your brother's lack of credibility but what the magistrate did that was that they had spoken to someone who had enough interaction with the defendant that over a period of time he had seen the defendant in possession of hand grenades pipe bombs and currently knew that the defendant possessed not just machine guns but to specific types of machine guns he also was able to provide the agents with the defendant's address  and tell them about the saddle houses out building he was able to describe that with some specificity and the agents were able to go to the address that the informant had provided and confirm that in fact there was this saddle house so they were able to corroborate the information that he provided and estimate that along with the detail type of information that mr ramos brother provided a stablished probable cause for the issuance of this warrant whether or not there was information about the explosion at issue but what does the what is the law say about staleness like think several months ago the person had this if it was drugs it would definitely be stale and you create with that right yes ma'am absolutely if that was the drugs it would absolutely be stale i did not find a lot of this circuit case law on point dealing with weapons there is a lot of case law from other circuits which i cited in a quite lengthy footnote footnote in my brief but as the magistrate judge found your honors i believe that that machine guns hand grenades pipe bombs those are the kind of things that someone would possess for a long honour's are done with your questions on the second one to turn back to the first issue i just the court found that exigency was a real issue in this case and i just want to explain  the sequence of events to show that it that it was miss one mic left her mother's home around eight o'clock in the morning and went out and found her car with the rear window blown out the glass is shattered inside and outside the car the frame is twisted and there are what judge the magistrate judge describes as an exploded bunny in the car the pictures are in the record they're basically bunny gets everywhere the little ears really and on the it's just gross anyway but you can see the smeared all throughout the car and the windows are black and making it appear that some type of explosion occurred in the car and she called the catahoula parish sheriff's office  deputies responded they believe said that they did not know what they had on their hands so they called the state police when the state police arrived they believe there had been an explosion and thus they activated a memorandum of understanding that they have with strange wife i'm not sure in later to what but it was later determined to be an explosion and i meant that louisiana state police had term so does that fit with what you're telling us it does your honor because the state police is determination led to but you got to come up with a it's it's consistent with the agent's testimony your honor so the a t f is notified about nine thirty nine that morning according to special agent man they arrived on scene at eleven forty five i don't see how that's humanly possible because i live the first seventeen years of my life in jonesville and it's a three hour surgery for it but they took this very very seriously and they got there very quickly and yet they were not able to immediately start processing the vehicle because the record shows that there was a nearby building that was a business that mrs womac and her sister own and the state police were afraid that because of what had happened to the vehicle that there were explosives in that building and they had to wait while the state police used the robot to go into that building and ensure that it was safe so that no secondary device would go off and harm the agents that were inside work in the vehicle so everyone was operating on these and that this had been an explosion and meanwhile is back in shreveport and he started working on his affidavit and he was getting a number of text messages from agent pious and also found out about the additional information that had come from the defendant's brother so they were operating especially in light of the threat to mrs wommack they took this very seriously they were working very quickly and i submit they did the best job they could under the circumstances and one  how is it the best job they could i don't think you have to go to the best job they could to win the case at how is it possibly the best job they could when he doesn't contact person at the scene and he could easily do that during the time in between well i don't think it's quite as it's he was speaking to his supervisor he was past speaking he's testified that he was precious scuse me speaking with resident engine in charge of rasberry who was speaking with the people on scene i don't know why he didn't personally call perhaps told to watch any i said why don't you check with them maybe they know something i thought i'm not suggested i contact someone i don't think he said that i think what agent pius said is i'm not there on the scene that would say well i better talk to somebody on the scene if you're in a he's waiting for information he thinks he doesn't have enough information he say and i'd be more probable cause and so he in he says i'm the person so that they're actually doing their job and it's not in the record john but i would just i would like to point out the and the more p c based on the bomb that exploded is what he texted he didn't he wasn't saying i don't think i have enough p c to get a warrant and of course to subjective belief is really irrelevant anyway but he was saying i need more p c based on the bomb that exploded are there detonators are there caps is there black powder he wanted more details  to to put about this specific bomb he always believed that there had been an explosion and he always believed that that in his part of his affidavit was correct why didn't the person say hold up we don't know that there's been a bomb exploded yet agent hosty not testified to hearings either i don't know that you're on anyway this is this is a case where exigency was a major factor  a point when you said that the facts as we know today were not necessarily the facts of agent but he believed at the time because this was a fast of valving fast moving investigation and the agent was doing the best  the faster it is the more ok it is to rush to judgment i'm just trying to understand how exigency helps well because because this court has recognized that when considering whether or not the agent acted deliberately or recklessly exigency is a factor that needs to be considered knowingly but exigent see i was talking to an attorney my office about this last week you think you know something when you're conducting an investigation and two days later you realize you knew nothing because you find out another piece of information that changes everything and agent was making an affidavit based on what he knew at the time at four o'clock that afternoon less than  rather eight hours after the incident had occurred and that's different than what we knew two weeks later or four weeks later or whenever the hearing on the motion to suppress but i guess my point is you don't judge what the agent stated then you know you don't critique any errors in the affidavit based on things that we learned later you have to recognize that it is a fast moving investigation and he's doing the best he's doing what he can up why would that be bare bones that doesn't i don't scott a direct person we know who said it we know they said it to we know what they said we know when they said it i'm trying to figure out interpretation of the f a day that would be remain and based upon the name or case for further proceedings for them to look at other bases about whether the evidence should be suppressed and all of that could or would we what's the result in this case i mean i have to concede that i don't know what else the government could prove per put forward he would just at their worst and render yes ma'am i think so i don't i don't know what else the and i'm not foreshadowing i'm just making sure we have all the would salvage this case if that happened so i did just want to make one point mr romack in his brief and just now on his argument claims that the government is arguing for the first time on appeal that agent bodie was referring to the state police findings that is actually not accurate the government did make that representation at the hearing on the motion to suppress and and i didn't but he so testified at the hearing but it is not your honor but agent may and i believe with the defense witness testified to it perhaps agent but he did also and i would also point out that according to age it may and even as of the time of the hearing on the mission to suppress there had been no determination he believed that an explosion had occurred he just did not know how it had occurred so we still do not know to this day exactly what happened or how that explosion occurred but he did believe there had been an explosion he speculated that perhaps that could have propelled the rabbit through the window and into the car i mean he still believed that an explosion had occurred anyway if the floor has no further questions as to back them up and thank you thank you appreciate your argument before i forget that the magistrate judge said that the reference to speculation about a potato gun now thing more than that there's nothing in the record that courts that agent man didn't communicate any address similar image if it's running out being in a hurry won't make you say the sun is shining there's nothing about what was happening that day in the several hours that the agent took to write the search warrant affidavit it was so rushed it should have caused the agent to send me i know that there has been a court said there were no accident circumstances that the reason we signed a name and think it's important just like the average skeins is that you have over statements and affidavit said you know i don't really think that that was something heavily pushing this at least not by itself maybe in connection with other evidence similarly we changing our human about the individual who gave information i say we're suddenly attacking his credibility when we did not the full and that the individual was a defendant from the first all that's both of your argument today thank you