a residence the government maintains that the detector sweep was was permissible was justified i would demonstrate that they have not met their burden of proof to justify circumstances surrounding the particular residence where they were to go execute this warrant they received information from the defendant's wife that he was in fact staying at that particular residence it's important to know that the residence was owned not by the defendant but by the defendant's mother so approximately nine to ten officers approached the residence as during the middle of the day individual i thought you said she told me she did it at a different location in a different city told us marshals this is where i believe he is this is this is his mother's address so with that information as they go to pick up where you left off they announce a presence it takes an approximate minutes come out the house and of the house he does come out of the house the door shuts behind him they take him to the ground arrest him without  now it's what happens there after that others and as you and defending our uses there was no exit in circumstances at that point that any exigency terminated  suppression hearing what i was able to visit from the officers a number of important things number one that they had no information that there was anybody else inside that residence there was no movement from the windows there was no they regarding cases circumstances is where it is so first off do you contests that this was an exodus circumstances case and if so that or do you accept it may have been extra circumstances but the officers are still didn't follow the law can follow me i mean are you do you take a view would you take a view of the suppression hearing this is not an accident circumstances case suppression hearing concerning that was what your cross examination of the officers or what yes i tried to elicit what prompted them and what motivated to what they could point to specifically they gave them some suspicion some specific a fact or some inference that was driving those facts to prompt them to to go in to ensure that residence and so again it's my contention in the government's response is well he's a known gang member he is a violent person he has a link the criminal history my response and had is that all of that was was terminated all those factors that they believed were important it was determined were terminated once they effectuated that arrest without incident and so again they could have secured a warrant they could have number two they could have asked the owner of the residence his mother for permission to enter that residen to things that i think stand out are important escape my second issue deals with the the extent of the protective sweep once they enter the residen and so again the notion is this is supposed to be a limited cursory search of the residence once or and i believe they exceeded that scope as court knows knows they proceeded into the residence and widens for these cases go so this case is says a better city center so what's the best case you rely on to prevail on them exceeding the search i mean we know that you know there are plenty of cases in which offices have looked in closets they've looked into beds and done it so we don't answer leon only and so what's the best case you have for your circumstances here daddy that the mattress look i don't have that certain cases where the notion that specific notion that looking under a mattress is permissible and what further looking under a box spring so i wouldn't rely upon again the fourth case and so the in the point that i want to photos in the record of the box bring it said or at the suppression hearing did you make an issue that the nature of the box spring was not such that anybody reasonably could have been underneath their war they were just trying to get the full sense of what again this defendant timely pled guilty almost immediately after the denial of suppression motion to suppress the defendant indicated to the court that he accepted responsibility that he would plead guilty the government not expand its resources as three d one point one contemplates has nothing to do with whether or not a pretrial motion or any other type of motion is litigated and has everything to do with  i mean what is this assuming argue window bad faith by the lawyer i mean what's up with taking that out on the defend it if it otherwise fits typically  fruitless you know i mean just no shred of anything you know just frivolous but that would tend to pertain more to a sanction on a lawyer or whatever not so much whether the senate gets it but here where there's no allegation a you know it's just frivolous it's no argument to be made what's the strength of bad faith here and then how does that there relate to the acceptance and then if the district court doesn't comment on it at all so what are we supposed to you know going through the and my response is twofold and that we start with the actual written to surprise that was submitted and there were factual allegations about how the evidence in this case was taken by officers the false if that was given was that when the officers reached up and opened up the mattress that there was a lock being mechanism on the wooden container and secondly they second allegation was that somehow officers used an instrument to pry that open you know obviously that's going to change the theory of the case in terms of the protective sweep which is based on a person being there and there being harm to the o shoe yes and i guess to go further into that why the government did not recommend that acceptance of responsibility was that the government was operating under the defendant's theory and so they read that mission to surprise replied to it and then we called witnesses to litigate that issues so at the time of the motion to suppress hearing the government is still negating that to show the judge why the search was reasonable he called two witnesses the trial prosecutor in this case called officer thomas and agent sutton to both give testimony about the matches the fact that there was no locking mechanism there were specific testimony about maybe the hinge being broken in damage they all had to provide that do with the language from being able to preparing for trial with commentary makes no reference to the government preparing for him that is true and in that case i think the difference is that the court was concerned that the sentencing he's not accepting his responsibility and if he is making up stories it's a very interesting point to charlie and i went back and looked at the language that even granted him the first two points and wonder if there was an argument to be made there but the government did go ahead and give him the first  seen the photographs and then when the judge question the defense attorney he seemed to admit he was not going to admit them and he did not think it was the correct course of action which was the proper thing and he did also make sure that the judge was aware he had not invented those photographs  evidence which is far as i can tell is correct and i think the commentary also on the third point is very telling in terms of it's not a matter of right that the defendant is entitled to it the government is in the best position to judge whether he's entitled to it and the district court is in title to great deference in that matter and i would like in this case to the fifth circuit case escapade a taurus where the defendant gave false testimony in suppress hearing a little bit different but the closest i can find factually and the court upheld that and said because the government had to prepare we had to go and prepare for something that you knew wasn't true then we were able to withhold that their point and that's one forty six seven thirty six if you don't have any other questions on the third point we can dive into the protective suite a few things that were mentioned by the defense attorney just that the government  agents could have asked his mother for permission to search the property the record shows that at the time officers were surveying it and had found out about the property the mother was not cooperative in fact she would not tell officers where her son was they later learned from a girlfriend or wife that he might be on the property so they did their own surveillance saw the defendant coming in and out of that trailer and determine he was living there at that time and with regard to the big question which seems to be why the officers didn't get a search warrant i have several thoughts on that the first is sort of commonsensical because it just wouldn't made sense these officers were not an investigative unit they were not the f b i they were not the d a there was no ongoing investigation for their purposes they are a specialized fugitive apprehension team the defendant's case was referred to them and their only mission was to go in warrant for a suite so of it seems to be exactly intentionally and i think the point is they probably didn't have probable cause and that's ok they didn't need it they were not there for the trailer they were not there to look for evidence they were going in to grab the defendant all the information they knew about him showed he was violent in the past he was presently violent he was he had just two weeks earlier been impersonating a police officer with a weapon and they were going in to grab him and to be safe they had no thought there's nothing in the record that indicates they were looking for evidence so they only needed a reason a suspicion for that protective sweep which only ten forty seconds as soon as they found the evidence which they had a right to because they were there lawfully they saw it in plain view they as you know the protective sweep we look at the to tally of the circumstance says we get to look at everything the officers did that day to determine if what they did was appropriate on that day and i think this court's ruling mahbubani helped the case in terms of giving guidance on when an officer can go in and when they cannot and further the garcia lopez case gives us further guidance about looking under the mattress which obviously is a very unique suit situation in this case it's very close to that case in terms of us having the go at arrest warrant going in for the only reason for the experience they both talked about their experience in arresting people all the different places that people hide and it shed a lot of light and give the judge a lot of understanding about what they were actually doing that day with this violent offender in looking past twenty years yes so going in they knew he was a violent offender and they were doing everything they could to protect themselves the mattress is very interesting but i think that the photos show up government exhibit three and four  are very helpful and i think that was the judge talked a lot about that about how the photographs gave him the picture of the scene in terms of the link it was eighteen inches by i believe six and eight feet and as you can see from the photographs it was hollowed out even though it had the shelf and had the shelf not been there a person could have been hiding there this was a lot of bad right i think that was in the other room judge i think this one was actually it's difficult to tell but you can sort of see the mattress sitting on top of the wood i think that water bed was in the second bedroom shoes regular mattress i believe so that's what the picture looks like to me it looks like a mattress sitting on a makeshift as you will a box spring i suppose that's hollowed out but their testimony was very enlightening in terms of the way people use hold up containers and the officers and garcia located in which this case upheld a search under a mattress is very similar in terms defendant was the target not the trailer this is a specialized elite force going in to take him and be safe and get out and i think the record reflects that these men with their experience did everything they could to perform their job that day in the best way possible it was and i think when you look at the case so you know the defense really had talked about how will this mission to suppress hearing was only an hour and a half and that would be the link to the trial but we all know there can be short trials and here's the thing if you look over that hearing record if the government were going to try this case there's not much more we would have had needed that would have been our trial so in effect we did present a mini trial and fifth circuit case law actually says you can deny true but we went a step further and said the reason we're doing it is because we had to in effect prepare for something that never happened age of seven didn't even need to be ca i didn't even cross examine agent sutton once he gave the testimony that there was no walking mechanism and so i think you can sort of re between the lines that that was concerning and that was the government's position throughout the entire sentencing hearing we are not moving to the third point strange i mean the typical moshe's pressure going to go in and attack you know the government's position you know to tell me oh you lose you plead guilty but here we have photographs purportedly and opposition and something about this are right now the government says well you know this is not right if you put this on we're going to do that we got this drama around the most of the press and that's not typical in the most of prayer she says you on the record then withdraw i'm not go you as compared small issues to whether or not there was a lot on that particular mattress and so the government is going to have to prepare for this motion here regardless you heard the government say they witnesses regardless of it well it's valid to have day for as putting aside whether a basis for the now and acceptance is based on how much preparation the government has to do it just sounds to me that based on the way this was teed up you're hard pressed to convince me that the district court abuse its discretion you know not to grant this point just based on the scenario that you've you've outlined oh my my my think the government it's trying to paint this as a some false and something being disingenuous and it's not that was never the case wasn't proven that these these government witnesses were going to have to show up to trial i mean sorry it's into the hearing regardless  were going to have to justify the war of the century and say well it's your position and you're sticking to it i got you right yesterday all right i think we have it all right mr vantage your court appointed and as with all the court appointed lawyers we have the court as a whole in this pal does appreciate you taking on these cases both to trying to come here and argue and without you and others we the system would work so thank you very much