on july twenty ninth of two thousand and three they would have a right to care or asked him to search his house his personal park and all of that as per his agreement with the state when he entered into probation my next question is and it looks to me is though there was plenty reasonable suspicion to think that he was violating the terms of his probation he had co nted to a search of word and there was reasonable suspicion and probably probable cause to think that he looked at his mother's and not at the address that he gave the probation be he's the person that applied for the warrant and that would be around page six or excuse me one twenty three so forth of the excerpts of record that things officers only tells a little bit of the story and doesn't bother to corroborate and say here's the weakness that i have just this check out with you instead they all took what they had not admitting that there were any a kid that was something like six times and then she said well i sure there's only three that she had logged and that came out if she didn't say she lied about six she said she was she never said that she lied but she said that she had logged three incidents that are why well the fact that there are franks also look includes the withholding of information she knew for example that he had a job and she had confirmed that he had a job it was a day job her job was i what what the evidence the record seems to indicate is that there was just a burning desire to go and search his mother's residence now has his mother has lived at that address for nine years that district courts say that this district that mr william bryant had given permission to search his car and that mr bryant mr michael bryant the defendant was subject to search because there's a dirty us so there really was no need to it's kind of like the tooth brush well i mean when they searched the magnolia apartments they found personal effects like toothbrushes razors deodorant the kind of things that you have that i had at my hotel last night when they searched his mother's house or straw friends bedroom they found some personal effects family photographs and it just driver's license there but no tooth brush no home no raise there i think and you know i don't know if you have adult children but i have four and we have a boxe this gentleman was not living on the street it is well what about the evidence that the brother the film this girlfriend wanted to visit this defendant that's that's true your honor however if we go back to some of these misleading statements that were made does that justify tell us that the only remedy that mr bryant or any defendant in this situation would have is but she would want to go before work or after work so she goes during the day when it's just her workout hours and these not there of course and so what she says is kind of weak it still seems was reason to think that he does live on magnolia there's also reason to think that he doesn't the results of the magnolia visits the probation officer interpret someone way he doesn't live there but at best for you they could be and maybe lives there maybe doesn't and number four when the police get there the brother and girlfriend make responses indicating he lives there why isn't that both reasonable for each of those reasons there's the probation officer c c ok withheld information that would that she knew could have gone either well let's take the first one when he got out he wanted a permission to live at his mother's an applied for permission to live at his mother's i can't see what the lazy you were dishonest probation officer and your casting of her has to do with that or how it could be false unless he was you saying that your own client misrepresent desired of the family didn't want him there and there was nothing to indicate that they've changed their minds i mean this is what does that have to do with the peel lying or or the information being false well because when she on on direct it's that his they didn't want him there so you know again it's just there are subtle little differences but that when they leave when they are used to deceive or mislead in order to to morning jill bolte on behalf of the united states i think the fundamental issue here is standing the defendant seems to want to have this whole equates he wants to maintain throughout his argument in front of the district court as was i'd come back from college or come back from law school and i could stay in my room they would refer to it as my room i refer to it as my room and although it had more more there stuff in it it was understood to be in my room that i have standing to object to don't live there i don't control it had nothing to do with it oh well yeah i mean isn't it incumbent upon us individually to assert our rights and interests so yes you're saying he can't have it both ways now let's just say that he's abandoned which is what i understood  well the problem with that on appeal i think is best if the district court found he didn't have standing and he hasn't challenge that so so how do we review how do you review that when a determination has been made by the district court on a legal issue standing to contest the search the district court said i find you don't have standing and that in the alternative that rule well even if even if it's found that you did have standing cures why the probation office has reasonable you not have standing suppose that a person serves i don't live there i've never been there i don't know anything about it i have nothing to do with it and the judge makes various findings of fact in the first there so it seems to me that that that argument is really then been foreclosed on appeal now there's there's one other point i would like to make that i think is significant here we called him a probationer throughout these proceedings but and  and that's basically the violation report that the probation office of the state filed with the court to get the arrest warrant to go out to look for him an eight eleven cell face that day and the last paragraph there on page fifty four of the there basically this research is that i just want to outline what those were the first was the probation search where they just they saw him coming from the residence they went in and did a search and then they went on a search warrant because they saw that there was some incriminating evidence in the house very important point that if the probation search the initial search before the search warrant was valid that there was probable cause to search the residence so really again at the level of the district court the defendant waive it was in his pocket when he his pre sentence investigation there was one incident with heads he had some drug convictions they were for some mostly small amounts of drugs and there it was one instance in which he had a gun and there were no there was nothing on an on the record anywhere that he get every used firearm in committing the sale of drugs or had actually used it and he is now serving time in atwater which as you may know was one of the