thank you your honor i think that this case is about category of fruits of law enforcement exploitation and basically on september twentieth two thousand and two thomas with donald was in custody in a prison down in california a law enforcement officer would have interrogated him without giving him a memoranda real warning during which time he essentially admitted to a drug trafficking crime in here's the reason for that order it may be that some of the focus in the district court the miranda violations in any event i think that's an issue that we need to look at before we get to the question of whether there was an independent source or whatever yes  be admissible notwithstanding the unwarned statement was the defendant's prior statement so that's the category of no nothing because that's correct i think what happened was he didn't get somebody i think a neighbor followed the dog to another house and then implicate at the defendant and law enforcement went to that particular house and saw the defendant there and questioned him and he provided an alibi witness he said this i was at this other well i think the distinction with patani to this case is that the witness was an alibi witness in other words he says i wasn't there i was with this other guy and so law enforcement rightfully so went and interviewed the other witness who said no he didn't left much earlier the distinction is that here we have here the fruit is basically self incriminatory statements that would not have death but for its having been made law enforcement would not have been led to the choir question these other witnesses in the drug conspiracy about mr macdonald that piece of matter right this for free verse or we don't care well i don't think that's correct because it seems to me that if a tiny one of the law enforcement officers knew that the guy having had a firearm  there was some preexisting knowledge that the unlawfully possessed this firearm and then they went and questioned him about that and he sees the firearm he admitted that he had it allowed him to retrieve it and law enforcement had in essence know it from asian of mr mcdonald was involved in drug trafficking the only thing that they had was a suspicion that he might be based upon this car the fia found a airport and the fact that the car had a great number of miles on it and i think the other thing was that he was from red bluff california that's the only thing that they had otherwise it was just pure speculation appear so the point is that but for mr macdonald's self incriminating statement that was taken without his read of warnings law enforcement would not have had any information that he was involved in this and that is why didn't the district court me finding very kind regarding whether you know of the statements they never would have asked about are going to i think  enforcement was in the early stages of its investigation but i think that they would have found mr macdonald nonetheless so he didn't sort serve and you never discover it doesn't have to worry about yes and that's court and the defendant in the government fleshed out even the district court these three cases that for the fundamental difference between the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment raised by the defendant in answered by the government the court made its findings they weren't in any way clearly air as to how the constitutional violation do we know all in terri and we know from the record here much about the circumstances of this interview and he asks in the persian no we do not your honor that interview will become a matter for further consideration by this court only if the defendant testifies and i will reserve until the time of trial until such time as the defendant testifies whether or not any statements given my colleagues but i don't know how we can make a finding that this was a voluntary statement when we don't know anything about the circumstances of it except that the man was  and explain why it is you believe the worst statements would have been discovered or why they were really  did not clearly air when it didn't so right and you have a rebuttal point on the first part of your argument but apart from that assuming that either either your theory you have advanced today or under some other theory district court beginning at line three will lie to you it is my determination from this record that the officers did not rely on the statements of pay for mr macdonald to get the information from these witnesses who have been identified by the government but it does talk about the self incriminatory aspect of it finally i think tucker can be distinguished again because the witness in tucker was an exculpatory with this whereas in this case the through to is the very the fruit that was exploited by law enforcement is the very thing that the fifth amendment