calendar with united states versus y found that there was reasonable suspicion to perform a non routine order search without having any testimony or evidence to rely on and what really is going on here is that the agents relied on the dog alert to that offered into evidence because there was no hearing regarding the nervousness the child had sounds way like a spell that nervousness alone without other specifically objective factors does not support reasonable honor that's true however i feel that they do need to look at whether each of those factors are valid i don't think that the district court him or the law and invalid factors and i think that when you take into account the fact that the dog and it was not the i think that that it was evident from my linked first that i did want to hearings so that i could cross examine the one of the other problems it's regarding the nervousness and proffer and the tapping i think things like that those are credibility determination as well of the court which would make it while that agent was testifying and being cross examined and although this court can rely on anything in the record to sustain the to affirm that ruling of the lifting up of a carpet and you have a panel the panel is opened up underneath that is the gas tank which ended up being searched remaining intact as it was from the very very beginning so this is not even a terrorist on kind of situation and i think  the panels that the courts that it was not routine search it's very difficult for me and i think for someone who has worked these kinds of cases to say that the area of the car that is most often used to smuggle drugs agree that festering might have wanted to get into well what the chinese crew signify to you and they just the court may or may not have said well that would be relevant to a motion very perhaps not relevant to a trial but we don't have that effort so where does it stop with the fa alternately were there they came out under oath we have no disagreement with the facts we have no decoration no affidavit filed i think the district court was well within her discretion not problem that's without have with not having an evidentiary hearing is really what mr o'toole did raise is that when you get to the trial proceeding and then motions already been ruled upon it to then try to delve into that the problem is that one of the arguments is that they're not routine search already occurred before they got underneath a carpet where the cutout on the ground was cut out on the floor and i don't think that would have really changed anything i think th all the way to pattern and practice and possibilities of just favorite groups and that's the more the more evidence there is of a take a look group being targeted th silent in this country and then the younger protection or witnessed what happened to her family she herself mentioned that she had she was called derogatory names because of the famil political affiliation and she herself was followed and then the group in the of the groups in the pudding with regard to the concerns of returning so that as was question earlier about the husband's return but after the husband's return again you know that in a going there there were not direct threats against her after afterwards which her big concern was about what happened to two family members and and a lot of her family members  was in armenia the whole time so the argument as to that he was concerned about his mother's health and had to go back to help care for her  of in the same town as the mother there was the improper admission of the numerous prior crossings the text of that and there are issues surrounding the prosecutor on his conduct in summation and in the admission  the cause well i mean anecdotally i can tell the court that as a public defender i've seen many many many cases where people are driving a car that is not registered to them as they cross the border i think that is a common occurrence so i don't think that the simple fact that he's a registered owner of the car alone is something that should permit that inference especially in light of the number of  what happened here and  possibility is that someone stuck it in there while he owns the car and he didn't know about it but that also makes no sense because how is this how is this person supposed to be calm in the marijuana which is very valuable that that simply shouldn't have been and i couldn't disagree more with the prosecutor's characterization as harmless error on this was a case where he presented it to friends that between the car and the date he got caught with the drugs and those were her words i think that the jury could easily have inferred hearing that testimony hearing that in your opening statement this is a case about marijuana smuggling during evidence that from a narcotic smuggling expert on that he was smuggling on those a prior occasions and make no mistake that's exactly what they wanted the jury to believe and that's why his testimony was introduced held liable whether the conducted before june twenty fifth two thousand and one then discovery was cut off and camber of two thousand and one you've got that narrow window in which you conduct discovery in this  date and there was no shelling of good cost for sure a court can set a time deadline for naming defendants but pretrial need not have not even come to the pretrial conference again there was a very narrow short period of time for discovery did you ever ask to have the discovery period extended but i did not know i think i did not ask because once i got the reports which  it had been scheduled i'm sure i just don't know offhand so i don't think given the fact you can't enforce the rule sixteen good cause requirement you have to go with the california and the district judge will polls that it's being so pain that photographs of potential wrongdoers are relevant at least recently calculate lead discovery of in this little evidence that an issue that recurs over and over again in these kinds of cases identifying the right officer it seems like if this order stands and what a plaintiff has to do is he has to just name every conceivable officer but don't come in and say that we have to keep our our images under wraps just as a matter of general principle not when you're running hot shows not when you're giving t v interviews when it serves the police interest and not when you present not a single piece of evidence a jury can infer that an officer who was there according to the reports according the police accounts either use the force or stood by and let fellow officers used force that's how it gets them it's not a because it's like grabbing somebody by the arm you can do anything with the dog of course that's not reality everyone you know should know what you're really dealing with but they engage in this fiction because they can fact it up with what david reaver agree to submit it to the district court and contemplated early on there's there there might be a situation with with specifically independence so i do think there's a principle distinction to her and one which at the respect to the trial court's ability to place time limits and certain certain events my understanding and we certainly read this in more detail because you know the tale discussed this is not a breeze but my understanding  what what what i am saying is that i understand your argument but it seems to me that that also implies that the plaintiff should have done something else other than after the photographs before asking against you i think you have an obligation to attempt to identify in some other fashion before you can come to this or any other court and say this was prejudicial i couldn't get it any other way and that's what i understand to be the work that these particular officers do you can have all kinds of protective order i understand those were not proposed as far as i know it was a we get them or we go and sort of the situation under those circumstances i is the other informations in the reports meaning he didn't ask for as i can tell my son got what i don't know and i can't represent the court one way or the other is what the date that is good because i don't know off the top of my head what what the days that before or client's testimony was that when the dog was placed on him he was already handcuffed and on the ground and that basically raises the issue that there was no evidence whatsoever ever presented anything that was that was produced by the plaintiff in response to my motion for s interpretations of the answers that mr cook got in those depositions what he does is he trains how to use the dog how to control the dog he doesn't say well if the if the defendant does this then you can use the dog or if you know these factors th can use the dog it's simply a matter of teaching how to control the dog with respect to the argument that mr reversed some way somehow negligent or unconstitutional in teaching the dog staff or teaching the handlers that when the dog bites you simply grabs an arm and doesn't do a serious injury i believe that you would have to believe that the officers are so ignorant that when they go through their training period and they have to take bites as a result of part of the train said there was no evidence produced as to mr rivers involvement in the sting any possible causation that he had with respect to this i will also point out that in my initial disclosure with respect to one of the officers information you need to go forward well sometimes you do i mean certainly the courtly presume that you have all the information you can expect to get a certain result for the gate or you're still you may still be gathering information and you can of course gather information that's when i got there was a dispute between the attorneys as to what the agreement was on our disclosure documents my position was that documents to be voluntarily produced the defense counsel mach said no no no you still have to make a request for production we only agreed to identify and anyway as they say that's disputed for the law on you can go on and that's the general motors ca that's on the face of the disclosure and i do think that that's the a distinction that is of some relevance and i want to share that with that with the court because i don't think i emphasize that well he's identified the name of the that let the channel as for the questions i think i will  thank you for your arguments he's pushed out the door booking jacket that he was walking out the door well in this case we're not dealing with a problem for a living and we're dealing with a represented playing by experience council and the implication of the plain language implication of the declaration supreme court and last graf we're dealing with the retroactive application of a statute the first part of the last breath test is whether it's certain expressed either a plain language  intense what whether or not we're going to apply this retroactively to victims of nine eleven terrorist attack doesn't say anything else about wrestling retroactive application to any of the other other planes that can that may or may be revived you know i found that interesting