warrant which describes the persons or places to be searched and items to these scenes with particulary as assures the individual whose property is searched or seems to the law whole authority of the executing officer his need to search and the limits of his authority your honor isn't that is exactly the issue that this appeal addresses today and it goes to the very heart of fourth amendment jurisprudence what we have here is a case that entire investigation and prosecution stems off of this search warrant which was executed and sweetgrass county and a national forest service land the search warrant it is described a far reaching wilderness area proximately one hundred sixty one hundred sixty acres of wilderness area in the crazy mountains in montana this area  approximately five fire pits meaning different campsite areas and number of other campsites stop grounds the particularities requirement here is not is simply not that the government attempts to salvage this search warrant by stating that there was a description of an orange truck driven and own mind but by my client mr hollander however at the time of the execution of the search warrant the truck was not at the camp site the tents at this camp site were not described the colors of the tents were not described as the numbers of the tents were not described and in fact this search warrant describes a property in premises located at a campground of cherry creek road on the west fork of the lower deer creek the executing officers searched a their search they looked up this road and and for the courts information it is a row it's a dirt road that travels up this mountain they look up the start road and they see lee the identified the ethical the only thing that is specifically in particularly describing the search warrant coming down the vehicle coming down the hill at that point before the vehicle ever arrived at the campsite area the nine officers approached this and from mine memory it is approximately it's within one hundred feet yes they probably could although it's my understanding too that it was just beginning it was dusk at this time although they a troll agent and numerous sheriff's deputies from i believe three surrounding counties now and had a search warrant that they provided to these two defendants now and we had a description of the items to be searched the place to be seized the reason for the invasion into the privacy of these two individuals so that there was no discussion about it the only it from the suppression hearing transcript i know this court is aware of the fact that there was one officer who did admit that when he transported my client from that wilderness area to to the jail in and big temper which is the county seat is up sweetgrass county that my client did say something along the lines but i guess you guys probably have a search warrant because you couldn't do this without a search warrant my client also testified at that hearing and stated that he had numerous conversations about a search warrant at the moment of his handcuffing at the moment he was placed in the car at the time he was interrogated by josh album and national forest service agent so there was discussion that night about search warrants search warrant w approximately ten thirty am the next morning and that is according to one of the forest service agents cording to my client he never saw a search warrant until september twenty fourth or days after the search took place this is exactly the kind of behavior that rule forty one was written to protect and that's exactly the kind of police conduct that that the exclusionary rule was created to protect my client's privacy rights were man indeed the ninth circuit has recently come down with an opinion on the definition and further ins and that's what i will also be using this morning is in between the driver's seat and the passenger's counsel is that is is the safe clearly designed for the use of guns is that what this is what the purpose of the safe is for you ordinarily unusual to find a safe in a truck i personally have not looked at that so i cannot answer the size and shape it has to be a fairly small one i do understand it is in between the two but i could see do you know whether the safe was was a fe ature that was the cap is the safe attach to the truck itself for the movable and i'm sorry to not know that answer either perhaps my co counsel when he gets up in the reserves time has an answer for   continuing on that there was a safe there was a lock safe and did have a combination key count one is the drug trafficking offense and which this particular crime is connected with the count one is the manufacturing of methamphetamine and that the implements for that manufacturing were in a tent and as my co counsel just said maybe it was a hundred feet away maybe one hundred fifty feet away at the and if they were not in the safe i guess i can make the argument that they were not they would be a hard one harder to be harder and the reason why it's across case shows is that many of the cases room and they're merely present that's not enough there has to be some sort of affirmative showing that the gun was in furtherance and i realize that in my opinion two cases are somewhat contradictory and one case says mere presence  it's not the kind of weapon that one would use for target practice or something like that here you are correct that dispute that the defendants claim that they that they requested repeatedly a copy of the warrant the officers testified that that the that they didn't ask that did the district court resolve that it was the president of the jury as she put it and they were just coming back from that excursion there's no indication they were actively engaged trafficking while they spotted i think the key here is that the gun was found in proximity to  kraus we've got we've got guns that are found in a motel room that are close to the paraphernalia i have the tools of the trade as you put it but if we were really we really are quite close to here holds that mere possession of a firearm at a drug trafficking crime scene without proof that the weapon furthered an independent drug trafficking offense is insufficient to support a conviction under nine twenty four seat that were what would be charged what was three years it was on or about september twentieth and then the indictment also the indictment specifically says on or about september twentieth two thousand and two and before including august of two thousand and two on public land administered by the united states forest service that's the time period and so so it is vague the only specific date that we see there is the september twentieth date  what's particularly important here too is that actually it overwhelmingly apparent from the evidence that the guns there in order to protect your they've been gone for i believe basic show that i really i think the evidence was and i could be wrong about this this is just my memory from trial is that they drove up the creek to go fishing for dinner and then they came back down to go fishing to catch their dinner and so it's my understanding that and any rate wherever they went with this truck the guns were locked in the truck these were not guns that were immediately immediately excessive but either of them as they were cook there was no evidence of of chemicals or nothing and that i mean next year stilt on the ground this was something that was boxed up in one of the two tents and this was also a vehicle that was traveling it was seen in they kember the day before it was seen in other anything that can cite that campsite location previous to this so this this box containing these chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine did not always accompany the firearms wanted to note that part of what happened here with the record is is not crystal clear about when this starts actually began there's testimony at the suppression hearing that the search had started previously  to the two defendants arriving however there's also evidence and testimony at the suppression hearing that the search didn't actually start until the you ride all of this orange pickup truck and i would refer the panel to page forty two of our excerpts of ok in response to a question and question now while you and all the other officers were preparing to assess and secure the scene you spotted an orange pickup truck with you recognize as being this your polland your vehicle correct to which he responded correct indicates that the search actually hadn't begun there were a number of law enforcement officers there caking direction from the forest service agents and from the steamer mr rodriguez just leads me to i'm sorry i feel that my time is almost expired unless there are divisions and it just leads me to to respond to the government's statement that this was not a federal search this was a search conducted on federal land conducted with and under the direction of judge to sign off on a warrant there was from the very beginning there was no question that this case was going to be prosecuted by united states attorney's office thank you honest he's just argued is cases just argue