conviction for thirteen twenty six illegally entry after deportation one of the ones that i'd like to hone in on is our claim that his miranda rights determine whether or not the person was in custody and whether or not there was any conduct that rise to the level of the of an interrogation which would be conduct that would be likely to elicit incriminatory responses and along the border  you know the court has established that there is a definition of custody as much stricter than it is in other areas as is counsel how do you distinguish those cases from the circumstances that we have here are they very similar well your honor in some cases that they are similar but i think in this specific case we have testimony in those cases there wasn't any testimony by the actual officer that there w his brief the reason that the agent went after this particular person was because when the person saw his vehicle he took off running he went and got him up ahead of him and then proceeded to do invest questioning in this case the agent had stated that he already had assumed that mr r c would write this was an alien but didn't he also have to pursue him in this case he did actually pursue him your officer had you know allegedly yelled who he was in the person and my client had allegedly ran off and then the agent pursued him apprehended him handcuffed him and then brought him to a different stated that he was under arrest prior to him asking any questions and he stated that he believed he agreed that the questions that he asked him would elicit information that would be used against him later in a apply and i think that whether what is incriminating information is determined on a case by case basis miranda warnings were required because the questioning was not part of the custodial interrogation  for the officer testified it was an arrest that is not correct that misstates the testimony a little bit on page twenty three of the briefing the government cites exerts of the record seventy three seventy it seems to me that the in a rest would be triggered perhaps at the point where the defendant admits that he's not a citizen of the united states or even later when the defendant is being transported act actually to the station at that point so the officer said that he wasn't free to leave correct that's correct and it is so it's not just whether you feel free to leave is it i'm sure that mr are saying let me guess to feel free to leave either and you're absolutely right you guy probably didn't feel that he was free to leave and the fact that basically during this current step you wouldn't been able to leave but what difference does it make if the person who is arrested provides information about where they're from in terms of whether or not it becomes a custodial situation for miranda purposes i believe it goes back to again that standard that the government cited whether a reasonable person or people would believe that they could leave at that point because presumably after the inculpatory statement is made here she a reasonable person  would not feel free to leave at that point they've admitted to assess that committing a crime in the united states by being in the country illegally is being in the country legally a crime no your honor it is just from asia you would not know he the officer would not know that this is somebody who's committing a crime that's absolutely correct your honor even if he says i'm from mexico and i came over the border illegally that would not be a take him back across the border right correct correct would that be an arrest what would that be i would i would i think there's no crime involved at the same time you can't it would be a border stop right  questions can be asked and then at some point afterwards it might ripen into an arrest say for example as i was mentioning the transportation to the border patrol station for additional processing in follow up but in this case your hon what what is it under the standard the recent innocent person standard i think that would be akin to an arrest on the question or whether they're in custody rather than whether question twelve did you ask questions that would have elicited information that you knew could have been used in a criminal trial in the future i suppose i did yeah and then on page two zero five during cross line twenty three and in your prior testimony you feel you felt this you fill this out after mr r c had been arrested is that correct he asked some questions and at some point he put the answer those questions in the form is implication here that he for love the form right there as he was asking the questions or is it  the government if the judge had found that there was a violation of his due process then another motion to consider dismissal would have been made and but i'm asking you about the weight of the evidence and whether or not there was sufficient evidence even in the absence of the statements that he made to the officer i think that the i can't decide what a jury would state in light of the  other evidence but not having the agent there at the time state this is what this person said and using that against them but was other evidence independent evidence from that statement admitted that proved his identity and where he was born and the other elements of the offense y