them and getting onto a bus in listing me is insufficient for purposes of probable cause that is the same man that the police that had been using the identity in this case the police had failed to correctly identify cash in the beginning they had someone else's name attached or someone else's identity attached to ca twenty second and the police had not observed the man that they saw get on the bus get off the bus in portland from boston that is what i believe cause the very similar circumstances and alabama vs white would have been analyzed under the probable cause rubric and it would because if there were probable cause i mean the consequence is there were probable cause then there would be no reason or reasonable articulable suspicion and then there would be no reason to bring the dog because they could have a rested him the second they saw him get into the cab it was going to me the issue here is being able to attach the identity of the man that they were observing the areas or with the identity of the information they need to know his name no they didn't need to know his name but they did need to know who they met to take but that's not that's not information we have been the reason we don't have that information is because the police officer he wasn't lying on the wire to tell him where he was going to be appearing his testimony was i was relying on the bus schedule he mysteries are over his story was i was in portland and i was trying to get home from the state or get home to roost and because i had spent the night poorer than it would be sewer for reasonable to suggest that well i was trying to catch a bus back wiretap information and that means that cash is the man that they're within the cap although there's very little evidence based on what the officers knew that they knew anything about the man they got on the bus other than he was showing up at about the time that the wiretap suggested he was going to get on the bus and that he was in fact in poorly when the i was that they expected the person who went to boston to pick up indictment the district work correctly found that there was overlapping evidence and witnesses regarding both counts one and five and it's also fair to recount five as a substantive act in furtherance of the count one conspiracy which is what the conspiracy in addition to the wiretap evidence that discussed not just oxy code on which were referred to as lose a wiretap but also he referred to heroin he used the word brown over the precedents are very clear that it's the defense burden first of all to stablish presidents that there have to be some stirring up substantial prejudice or a fundamental unfairness and that garden variety complaints  very specific about the evidence that would cause him a specific trial right to be prejudiced and that in the case of typical spillover sufficient simply arguing that i'm more likely to be convicted because of the evidence against the other people charged with me it is not sufficient particularly when there is the ability to have a cautionary or limiting instruction to the jury the district court judge found in this case that he did not believe that the evidence and so we would argue that there was no abuse of discretion and the decision here is not to sever mr ray's or from the other defendants if i may move on to the suppression ruling our view is the key question here and really the more when the information is coming straight out of the target's mouth as it was in this case so we don't have that added layer of being concerned about the right liability of the tet we have a floor and dancing around themselves discussing is the first specific travel plans jacket in the black hat get out of the truck that he knew belonged to carry by drug woman in her sixty's who was known to be part of the exactly the travel plan that here is or over the wire indicated he intended to speak and so based on that we would argue that there was sufficient probable cause at the time trooper pappas thought it actually had more lives than to stop and search the taxi my colleague attorney andrews has indicated that this really should be a reasonable articulable suspicion case and that under that standard the length of a traffic stop was too long suggest first of all that's not the appropriate analysis because this is a probable cause automobile exception search the warrant requirement however even if this court works you evaluate this on a reasonable ar before i address the issue for severance stretched where i would like to make one quick point about the anonymous tip information alabama vs white is not an annoyance to information case versus why it is a tip from a paid foreman is different than florida vs jail which is the anonymous information case and i suggest and suggest below conspiracy throughout the city of loosening and the information related to p r every sewer was very small in respect to that now there were some discussions about other well i'm not sure that the police believed when he was discussing with white but he was discussing cocaine he may have been discussing mallie up at heart and i agree that those conversations occurred but i don't think that those are enough to tie him into a  attributed to all the other people and i believe that there were almost twelve people in this case that almost certainly would have inflamed the jury with respect to my