there are three issues presented by this case first whether mr rain on his fifth and sixth amendment rights were violated when the district court gave an outdated joint possession instruction when all the government's evidence pointed to mr ray no need so we possessing the gun to whether mr a nominee's fourth amendment rights were violated when the edison police department acting pursuant to a state investigation placed a g p s tracker on his vehicle without a warrant and without his consent and three the addison police relied on some of the information that they learned from surveilling him via g p s to get a warrant to search his vehicle answer later search his house the evidence that was obtained against him resulted from this g p s being a warrant was device this violated his rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and furthermore at the time that the edison police were attached the device they were acting pursuant to state law and not federal law so therefore they this  which would have been buying precedent at the time had they been acting pursuant to a federal investigation did not apply furthermore this case is distinguishable from the facts in because in garcia the time that the g p s tracker we don't know the exact amount of time that the g p s tracker was on the vehicle for but based on other articles based on articles it can be safe to say that it was a short amount of time and this further is emphasized in the way of us versus pres case where the tracker was and the vehicle for sixty days this  sixty hours this was also a the court the seventh circuit held that the duration of those search the generation of the time that the g p s vehicle was attached was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment whereas in jones which later overturned the garcia and wave us case the jones case held that the twenty eight days of g p s tracking certainly was unreasonable and was a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment and in this case mr rayney not only had this device on his vehicle for twelve days but this was we know that it was at least twelve days and under illinois law the illinois illinois constitution is free to give its citizens and greater protection than the federal constitution does and an example of this jimmy found in the case of people versus krueger where the illinois supreme court held that the good faith exception to the not going to announce rule violated the illinois citizen's rights to be free from on reasonable search and seizures this was in contrast to the cape to the supreme court case of people versus croll where the supreme court held that the officers good faith reliance and a law that later becomes constitutional is finding at the time in the exclusion rule should not apply but the exclusionary rule should apply in this case because the addison police officers were acting pursuant to a state investigation rather than a federal in been if it had been a joint investigation and the facts of the case may be more like the brown case where the warrant where the officer is where the good faith rule could have applied could have applied because garcia was controlling at the time but because it was not and if it was a joint investigation you what have to you would have to analyze it and in two separate ways you would have to you'd have to think that they would be acting under under federal law as opposed to this the state law but in this case it was they were only acting pursuant to a state investigation  clinton's that's absolutely correct your honor the federal standard would apply if this were a federal investigation but broken federal prosecution federal prosecution yes and on trial currently in the building that's absolutely correct but the reason why the reason why this case got to the federal building was a result of a state investigation involving the addison police this this again this did not beat this was not a federal investigation at the time the officers were acting pursuant to illinois law they were addison police officers and they were under illinois illinois jurisdiction they were not under there was no federal investigate if there was no side federal investigation going on along with this state investigation at least that we know of course and therefore at the edison police should have been acting under illinois law and our illinois constitution which gives its citizens greater protection at least in the example of  federal constitution and therefore they don't have any pictures of that would suggest that the truck you know michel information from the state authority would would make a difference i understand the distinction investigation which results in federal prosecution where that would preclude the normal application of federal law the only case that the only case that we have that states that states sort of in the realm of what you're asking your honor is that taylor case but it's because the taylor case started in indiana yeah but again that was a little bit and it's a different field than the federal law is exception of the good faith rule and davis and therefore we asked that the the g p s be stricken and or we were entitled to have  notes that the officers relied on when it came to how much of their g p s surveillance was used in getting the warrant because we don't know how much of the g p s tracking they used in order to put in their warrant or in their application for a search warrant to the judge because the search warrant was silent as to how much they rely on this g p s information and we asked for this information and they didn't get it and therefore we don't know if without the information from the g p s tracker if there would have been even probable cause to get a warrant and turning to the turning to the third but given if i understand this record correctly ms lopez the defense was highlighting both the access that other people had to the bedroom and the nightstand in question where the gun was found and was highlighting the government's lack of knowledge about when the gun was placed there so the testimony about the timing of those of the staff to the gun seems to at least put an outer limit on that question right or so why why isn't that a reasonable basis for admitting that it may well your honor while the prosecution is certainly entitled to present its evidence the way it it wants there we there are other ways that they could have presented that that testimony they could have had they could have had other people that had access to the home come in and testify that it wasn't the god as opposed to putting mr failand on the stand to testify that he was this victim of this horrible home invasion and or robbery and his gun was stolen in two thousand and eight leaving the jury with the  the defendant relies on state law rather than predator law but as judge pointed out it's a longstanding rule that federal law applies in the context of the determination of admissibility of evidence in federal federal prosecutions and that is true here and indeed specifically with respect to this issue the seventh circuit is how that the that officers and agents in are permitted to rely on the circuit law of the state in which they are that applies to the state in which they are practicing and there are no cases that i'm aware of that i could find that in any way address the possibility that there might be circumstances under which the court would look to state law and determining the question of whether the exclusionary should a rule should apply or should bow to the good faith exception in this type of context  and as i said indeed the cases say otherwise moreover this state law relied upon by the defendant here is not even the relevant law in that defendant relies on  state law regarding the application with good faith exception but the relevant if there if state law were to apply here which it shouldn't but if it were we would look to the law that governs the police officers conduct not the law that determines whether the existed or did not exist a remedy and that's the only state that the defendant has been able to produce and indeed there was no sed there was no state law forbidding seclusion early rule should not apply to suppress the evidence they have filed here with respect to the question of the testimony showing that the gun that the defendant was charged with had been stolen the people who had access to the defendant's residence the theory of defense as your honor judge hamilton has noted focused largely if not exclusively on the idea that multiple persons other than the defendant could have left the gun where it was recovered the defendant harped on over and over again in cross examination and argument that any one of the people who had access and even keys to the apartment could have left the gun where the where the officers found it in particular the defendant focused on the defendants are rather on the defendant's roommate's ex boyfriend and he moved out of the apartment in september two thousand and eight the evidence showed the challenge the evidence showed that the gun could not have been placed in the defendant's bedroom until october two thousand and eight when the gun was stolen and that was after the ex boyfriend had left the apartment and testimony of mr failing also tended to refute the defendant suggestion that the absence of defendant's fingerprints was telling mr thaler testified that he used the gun that he took it out of state for shooting trips to wisconsin and his fingerprints were also not found on the the gun the  evidence therefore was was as a district court found very very relevant to the issues that had have been joined the case and there was just you know there was no abuse of discretion in admitting it in any event even if the admission of that evidence were erroneous it would be it would be a harmless error here because there was an avalanche of evidence demonstrating that the defend the connection between the defendant and the gun here the gun was found in the defense in the nightstand next to the bed in the bedroom that was used by the defendant the night on the nightstand were pictures of the defendant's family members decided his grandson the inside th nightstand with the gun were documents that that bore the defendant's name and the address where the gun was recovered there is just an avalanche of evidence demonstrating that the defendant did in fact constructively possess the gun here finally with respect to the joint possession instruction the district court properly instructed the jury regarding constructive and joint possession using language nearly identical to language that w expressly approved by this court and warrants evidence showing that the defendant shared the apartment with another person that others had access and even keys to the apartment and defendant's efforts to exploit that evidence in support of the argument that any one of those individuals who add access to the apartment may have left a gun there amply supported the district court's decision to give the instruction therefore if there are no further questions the government would ask th defense conviction regard to the second issue just because there isn't a law in illinois that forbids warrantless g p s tracking does not mean that it's ok for officers to just go ahead and put g p s tracking devices on cars without a warrant and without consent and the evidence that was obtained from the use of the g p s device in violation of mr rein on his fourth amendment rights should be suppressed and for those reasons we cases taking under advisement