failed to disclose the existence of surveillance footage that a magistrate reasonably could have found negated probable cause for the police's theory that mr moses was operating a chop shop on this the st of these is that the surveillance would have captures some indication that there was a chop shop if one existed that's because the camera with that up to capture a wide swath of mr moses property including his driveway his home and two outbuildings including the place that was alleged d to be the shop that he worked on the cars it was up and running for five month surveillance camera didn't capture any indication over five months that mr miller was operating a chop shop and that not only because the officer who would use the surveillance said that he never saw a vehicle on mr moses property that had been reported stolen according to the defense's affidavit but also because if there had been any indication on the surveillance that mr moses was running a chop face we can see that the affidavit supplied probable cause so certainly there's no question that the informant statement at least on their own whatever establish probable cause our claim is that when you include the a surveillance information that an asteroid reasonably could have determined that that prompted the informant statement because the surveillance information is objective the camera the statement then said look these are very low quality statement but the most part of the affidavit doesn't give us any reason to think that the informants are reliable reporters that for the most part doesn't show any source of knowledge and it makes clear that these informants who made the statement are facing their own criminal charges and probably trying to save them and so in light of the surveillance information that the timing reasonable to think that what happened is that the police are busting a bunch of people for stealing cars or possessing drugs or whatever and they're in the interviews let slip maybe inadvertently that the police is there is that everybody has taken the stolen cars out to darrell and trading them for drugs and some of these folks who need law enforcement favored to stay out of jail are willing to say you know what you're right everybody is taking their stolen cars to daryl and trading for drugs and that's how you define saturday and while standing alone that not be something that a magistrate to do with the state and that's something that you have to take seriously when you have the surveillance video that seems to contradict what the informants are saying about fingerprints we can find any leading leading bodies or what is not obvious these are the things we didn't find but these are the things we did time and i mean there's no requirement like that there isn't a requirement like that and mr mo we had this camera up and running for five months it recorded a wide swath of mr moses property and that they never saw a vehicle on his property that had been reported stolen they already had holes but they could not from from the fact that it's dark and the pictures were out a long long distance it could not discern the make or model of the vehicles i don't think that there is any add miscible information to that effect that is  the quest for hearing that that was what happened with the surveillance but that can't be considered in determining whether mr moses should get a hearing if the government wants to present e to be stolen but how is that inconsistent with the presence of vehicles that may have been stolen i think that the record fairly support that tech t viber and detective where we're doing like a sort of comprehensive investigation into stolen cars in in northern oklahoma and so they had a list of all the cars in norman that had been the ported stoneman and they have this camera up and running for five months and no none of the cars in the dorman area that the reported stolen that definitively about the aerial photographs i don't think that those are in copa tory or corroborate the informant statement at all and the reason is mr moses doesn't deny that he worked on cars that he had a salvage operation and or an informal repair bill on his property and what the aerial photographs show are vehicles that are dinosaurs like from the nine hundred and seventy dollars and not the sort of thing that anyone would steal it's also noteworthy that if you look at the photographs closely it's clear that the vehicle d had clearly been there for some time so there are brass that are blowing up around them and that the informant statement said a little strong it might be i thought about this i thought about this as i was preparing this i think what i also argue in my brief and i think is much more likely is that this is accidental that the police are conducting these interviews and let slip that look you know when we understand that all of these cars are being taken out in the darryl what do so i think that the much more likely scenario is that this is accidental and that it's you know sort of inadvertent suggestion and that the informants are telling the police what they want to hear and to me there's some support for that informants may be the same with the police want to hear and you know the reason that you have to consider this is that there is a reasonable inference which when title to this pre hearing stage that this video please the court didn't critter on behalf of the united states the district court properly denied mr moves motions pressed without conducting a frank caring in the middle east much of what i'm going to say has been discussed and emphasized by the court already but i think some of it  that one of mr weaver arguments is that much of what he's arguing with regards to the to the formants and how they somehow are mistaken was accidental assuming just for a moment that he's correct that it's accidental that doesn't warrant any relief under frank's franks for negligence or perhaps dents those false statement omissions would not need to be corrected it's only the missions or false statements that are knowingly or and cause me intentionally made or with a made with a reckless disregard for the truth of probable cause once the affidavit is corrected this suspicion standard is not a standard that would suggest drawing all inferences against finding probable cause it's a standard that asks on its face with the information included what it has what the whatever be a finding of probable cause now the court doesn't have to go so far the say that all inferences should be drawn in favor of finding probable cause statements and i have i would submit that perhaps if there was only one informant if we were right on the edge of probable cause that that might warrant at least for a discretionary frank's he u individuals who were stealing cars were caught and were caught when calls were being made they were being they were wearing black clothing suggesting if they were trying to move honor there there was no trial and there was no hearing on the scaife and so everything was in the papers and everything was in the motion and response essentially everybody has operated on the presumption and i would assume and based on this case the support th law i think it's a relevant presumption is that if a defendant can show that evidence that was omitted with material then for purposes of determining it here whether or not to hold a hearing the court will draw the inference that the omit the material admission was reckless done with reckless disregard for the truth or intentionally which this goes back to the entire purpose of holding a hearing under and just one final question we would we in this case as i understand barbour never knew the footage is that correct correct he relied solely on detective where's review of the footage thank you one who was present for the discussion and the interview with detective where he also said the defense counsel and help for the government was present tell me the same attorney who he said was present on behalf of the government to that interview with the attorney who wrote the response brief and that information is contained i believe in the nd page of that response reef and i didn't know it isn't in truth i don't think that that's accurate as far as i can see frank doesn't say that at all and it just makes sense that if there is a dispute a fact about what it is that the police knew at preliminary showing that the surveillance footage was material and i think that we have to make that showing the other point i wanted to make is what is the evidence that detective barb a fourteen page affidavit that he tailed every single step of the investigation in this case and then i think based on the extreme detail of the affidavit a judge could infer that the reason this