or speak a little louder if you could because i'm sorry to hear you this court should reverse the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence found in mr cast in the backpack because the district court erroneous lee determined that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied when in fact the record reflected that discovery of the gun in mr cassatt his backpack was far from inevitable inevitable discovery via an inventory search requires the government to prove first that the officers obtained a legitimate custody of the property and second that the inventory that they conducted was conducted according to standard policies and procedures and that means both that the policy itself has to cabin officer discretion in the means by which the inventory search is conducted and the officers have to comply with that policy and nics versus williams the supreme court make clear that inevitable discovery can't involve speculative elements it is supposed to involve just demonstrated historical facts that are capable of ready verification defendant riding the bicycle we've seen the backpack i wind up arresting defendant what are they supposed to do about the bicycle in the backpack so this goes to the legitimate custody issue and i think what they're supposed to do is they're supposed to have a policy that guides them in how they deal with this issue what are they supposed to be just as a practical matter i mean i understand your concerns and i have some concerns with regard to the department's policy it seems to me the facts of this case are are difficult because you don't expect them just to leave the bicycle with this backpack with something sticking out of it was a church i think just leave it there they are t aking defendant into custody there's nobody else that's obvious is not like the defendant scott another passenger in a car that presumably could take custody i really don't understand practically speaking what it is the police officer supposed to do about the bike and the backpack especially if they have suspicions as to what might be in the backpack you wouldn't leave something this case turned out to be dangerous just sitting for anybody else to come along so as a practical matter what else could they have done but to taken possession of the of the bike in the backpack well your honor i can answer that in part by saying what they didn't do and what their policy didn't cabin their discretion in doing which is that they didn't inquire at all as to mr kasson it is desires or wishes about the property they did not determine whether there was someone who was available to come in take the property they didn't determine if it was even his property they didn't determine if he intended to leave it in the churchyard because what o b l was in his property what are they supposed to suspect that he's stolen the bike and so should we should leave it here i mean it as a practical matter i'm still waiting to hear you're  telling me what they didn't do i'm still waiting to hear what they should have done well they could have inquired with mr kasson you know as to what his wishes were and if he was able to provide them with someone who could come and pick up the property or some other way to this but to dispose of the property they could have done that the problem with this record is that they made no inquiry and there's no dispute that they made no inquiry they didn't determine that the property was his they didn't determine that he wished to take it with him it later developed that he attended this church and so it's possible that he intended to leave it there the problem is we don't know because no inquiry was made and i know that there's sort of a response to that which is well the fourth amendment doesn't require them to make the inquiry but i want to be clear that my argument is not that the fourth amendment requires them to make the inquiry what the fourth amendment requires is that the policy cabinet officer of discretion so that they don't get to choose whether or not to make the inquiry based on suspicions that they have which is what happened here they believe mr kasem you know was suspicious and they were highly motivated to take this property to take custody of this property and the property was across the church yard it wasn't within his immediate possession or control question they lead to arrest there was an outstanding right that is correct your honor we don't dispute that property and time so it riding the bike in the bike had the backpack correct so what happened just to be clear he pulled the bike through a hole in the fence and went on to the churchyards property lean to the bike on a shed the backpack was tied to the bike and then walked across the property so according to this didn't come out of the hearing but according to defense counsel's motion to suppress there was about a ninety foot range between him and the primary claire it was his property well he h where he certainly had been in previous possession of the property your honor i'm not arguing against you on that point but my point is is possible and we just don't know on this record it's possible that he had wanted to leave the property there it's possible that he could have made alternative arrangements for the property the police department doesn't automatically have to take custody of the property without making additional inquiry for example does have a policy in which when they arrest someone who has a vehicle they are required to give them the option to try to make alternative arrangements to have the vehicle taken away and if they can't do so then they can impound them and that's the sort of discretion that's lacking in this policy well it's interesting because i can see police department reasonably having a policy that relates to you when you're arresting the driver of a car because don't know if you have to have that granular policy but here here's the problem that i have with their lack of policy is that the officers testified officer chyron as in particular testified that when they arrest someone it is up to the officers discretion as to whether they states the reason wellness of any particular governmental activity does not necessarily or invariably turn on the existence of a less intrusive means and here you have a situation where you know the police were not required to seek out a friend or family member because of where this backpack was was found  there was no there was nobody who knew casimir in the area i think there is testimony about that the police asked someone who was near the fence if they knew cassaday and they said no he was talking to a gentleman near where he was standing and there was officer testimony that they spoke to that gentleman who spoke spanish and he said he didn't know mr cassatt data just for completeness that later developed that mr cason you just said that that gentleman did work for a stepfather and mr castro attended the church however to your ultimate question and i understand that this is a sometimes a difficult line illinois versus lafayette that's absolutely correct and i agree that it's not a less intrusive means question my problem is the discretion the fact that the officer said it's entirely up to their discretion to determine whether they call someone or not and they actually said sometimes they do contact people  and one of the problems with the testimony is that the officers never gave mr castigated the opportunity to volunteer anyone that could be contacted as i pointed out in my brief he actually lived approximately four miles away and so it was possible that someone could have been available to come get his property we don't know the steps here you have the inventory search before that you have the decision to take this property into custody i'm familiar with authorities with regard to discretion for the inventory search i'm not so sure that i understand that the police department or the city is required to have policies with regard to that first point what is a precedent you would point me to that that that limits the exercise of discretion there because it seems to me that the variety of factual circumstances that would be faced by an officer as such the do very difficult to develop guidelines that could apply in each case time of day seriousness of the crime how quickly they need to get back to the station how long they can wait for somebody else to show up and pick something up the nature of the object car may be one thing but a bicycle or a backpack or suppose would it's very complicated so i guess what i'm in a long winded way asking what what case imports a proposition that exercising discretion at that stage is a problem well colorado versus the supreme court case has a sentence in at that says there's no indication here that the officers chose to impound the vehicle to for investigatory purposes and therefore we're going to hold this inventory search so that the decision to take custody of the property is actually a key point in the analysis but doesn't tell me that if you don't have guidelines permitting the officers to exercise their discretion is a problem in this case you've got property that's that's going to be sitting there  you picked up by anybody else i suspect that your client may not have been very happy if his bicycle and backpack were lost because the officers didn't do anything about them so so tell me again what it is about the exercise of discretion at that first  taking the custody in taking custody of the property is such a problem part of it is the way that the testimony came out what the officer said was it's entirely up to their discretion and then they also said that they will frequently search the property before they handed over to family and friends to make sure and if there's any evidence they'll bring it in that is not an appropriate inventory search i know i sound like i'm going to do research but i'm still and i understand there's authority there i don't know of cases that say that the police department can't leave it to the officers to exercise discretion in terms of taking it into custody no they may have done something improper but it isn't the lack of guidelines that's the problem there what i think the the discretion has to ensure that there vindicating governmental interests i believe all the supreme court case law and all the cases that i cite talk about the importance of the impound that that decision can be made  or you let me rephrase it you can't be allowed to make that decision for investigatory purposes you can't have so much discretion that you're allowed to inventory your will based on your suspicion of criminal activity which is what happened here i do see i only have about two and a half minutes left so i was hoping to reserve some time for rebuttal yes please the court my name is crystal wood and i'm representing the united states the firearm in this case was going to be inevitably discovered the defendant was placed under arrest and he was going to be booked into custody as part of that booking procedure understand if they if they were required to make that well i'm just saying typically when there's no is to say is there someone else who can come get the bike in your backpack it's unclear why it was that unclear because at the scene there was one individual that the defined it was speaking with who reported that he did not know who the defendant good could guess native called someone we don't know that based on the police didn't ask him for officer chyron testified that he spoke with the defendant about where he was living and the understanding of the officer is from the defendant at the scene was that the defendant was living in phoenix which is a greater distance from el mirage i think counsel has said for miles she reported that and that was in the reply brief but that was not part of the suppression hearing at the time of the suppression hearing it was the understanding of the officers  at the time of the contact with mr cassilis i actually didn't know because in ask right based on the testimony i did ask mr trier i'm sorry officer defendant and asked and was under the impression that the defendant lived in phoenix which is substantially more than four miles away from el mirage so based on the evidence that we have there was nobody readily available to take the firearm i am sorry take the back seat on the backpack what we do know and what the district court found was that they saw the defendant riding the bicycle he had the backpack it was in a high crime area it was close to another home that was known for theft and criminal activity they would be liable if they left the backpack there and it was stolen or liable if anybody in the community was harmed and so there was no situation in which the officers would not take the bicycle in the backpack to be inventoried because the different was placed under arrest that was the policy yes you're  clarification yes i believe everything i know the testimony referring to officer liz inskeep testified that he was anxious to conduct an inventory search and he believed there might be items of evidentiary value in the backpack that  also testified that an inventory would be conducted regardless and he was the only officer text i'm sorry who testified about possible investigatory motives as an bow hey whether officer has to a bona fide motives doesn't invalidate the search and all officers testified that there was an intent to conduct an inventory but yes i do know the portion that you're discussing with officer listen you would you supervise release condition yes your honor the supervised release condition is that the defendant i have medication and you know medication that is ordered th should be interpreted in light of prior case law which is to be read that it does not implicate a significant liberty interest and with that additional reading on there it does not states versus aspire so which were both cited in the briefs those cases where both remained on separate issues and they specifically said if the condition is to be construed to implicate a significant liberty interest then there needed to be an additional williams finding if those findings were not made then that condition would be read just to implicate those medications that would not impinge upon a significant  the situation that we have here any different from cold and daniels and williams i don't believe it is any different your honor so in those situations like this cord vacated the sentence and reman other instances or other reasons that those cases where we mandated so for instance in us if you daniels the court said if no such record is developed the condition will be construed to be limited to medications that do not implicate the defendant significant liberty interest and that's on page one twenty six also in united states versus a sparrer aspire as a we remain in this condition to the district court so that it can make necessary findings with respect to the requirement that take the prescribed medication but if the court chooses to require the defendant to take medications implicating that particular significantly better interest and i feel so i stumbled over that so the point being that inspires a if the court wanted to impose a condition to implicate the significant liberty interest additional finding needed to be made and we've said something like that and i'm published cases sense but it leaves me a little perplexed because how are we supposed to figure out as anybody supposed to figure out with that concept that medication that effects or implicates significant liberty interest what kind of guideline does that mean is there a list that when they say ok these these drugs implicate a liberty interest in these drugs don't know what what's but to be done in practice in practice the courts the court has imposed has found that medications implicates significant liberty interest in three situations chemical it would be any and all medications prescribed by medical or other treatment personnel during the term of supervised release so it's not a condition that the probation officer would make that determination it would be a medical personnel so if something was prescribed th defendant thought crossed the line what's the defendant supposed to do the defendant could could work with his attorney and if if he felt that there was something that was invalid that was being prescribed work with the probation officer as attorney to be redressed by the district court if that situation arose or here the the medications are correct me if i'm wrong psychoactive medications in this particular are they what i meant what kind of medications are they as present to the pre sentence report writer the defendant's awful suffered from mental health like depression and things like that it was taking xanax so that's the only specific medication that's on the record that's been addressed and whether he's i don't know his current medication but he may be forced to choose between taking psycho active medications anti psychotics have been shown to have been found to impinge upon a substantial liberty interest so no he would not be forced to take any psychotic medications what is the meaning of  wish i was more intelligent about anti psychotic but it's my understanding is a particular group of medications and those have been determined to be impinging upon a substantial liberty interest and that would be known by the medical professional who would be responsible for prescribing of medications i did want to briefly address the issue of do a bonafide motives and then i'll try to address the supervised release condition of that is ok as to do a bonafide motives i want to be clear bowhead does say that officers with dual bona fide motives who have no just scratch and can conduct lawful inventory searches but i want to reemphasize that my point is that there was so much discretion allowed here that the officers were allowed to use their inventory policy as ruse to try to collect evidence and so therefore the fact that there may have been another motive doesn't matter because they both weren't dual bonafide motives given the amount of discretion as to the supervise release condition  i agree with the concerns expressed by the court judge clifton alluded to the risk of violation and just to be clear i believe opposing counsel misstated the medication is zoloft that mr had been previously prescribed for anxiety and depression but those kinds of medications while they may not technically be considered so i could psychotropic medications which i think are usually used for schizophrenia or things like that they still have impacts on the brain and body that are significant and they impact brain chemistry and so i believe that if this condition were to stand mr caster need it would be forced to make a decision between taking medication that can impact his brain and body some of those medications carry risks that are as significant as suicide and facing potential violation proceedings and incarceration and so i throw back to corded that point he shouldn't have to do that you should have to make that that kind of decision he should have noticed going into it what is considered a violation and what is not particularly given this issue of mental health that this is such a a difficult issue and the medications have such broad and varying side effects if you were the district court judge here at the sentencing how would you have framed or phrased the condition of supervised release with respect to  medication i wouldn't have imposed it your honor big simply because i think i don't think he should be required to take this this kind of medication i think that's an issue between him and his doctor it's one thing to have go to mental health counseling and try to get the systems but i don't think the medication requirement is actually necessary if it were i think one has to make specific findings as to the nature of the  illness or condition that is to be treated the medications that have been used and what potential side effects they are and how that could be resolved by the court so i think it would have to be a much more detailed proceeding if that medication condition or to be impos