united states with your permission i'd like to reserve three minutes her about all when properly reviewing a search warrant a court does two things first it pays great deference to the magistrate judge as probable cause determination and it looks at all the information within the four corners of the affidavit and we do that here we will find that the magistrate judge had a substantial basis to issue this warrant to find that it's more likely than not that evidence or contraband would be in the target house here at the affidavit showed not only that informant said cocaine sales were current out of the target house but also that this had been confirmed by controlled purchase of cocaine or the seller left that target house in a vehicle also registered to that target house in order to do the cocaine sale so under the deferential review and considering all the evidence or all the all the evidence in the affidavit together the magistrate judge  substantial basis to find probable cause now the district court here did not can conclude that's because the district court didn't afford the magistrate judge that deferential review and didn't look at everything in the affidavit specifically what was overlooked here was that controlled purchase well before you get into the controlled purchase i just want to go back to the minimum ask you looking at the point of the affidavit without the i think so your honor because of the control purchase you're asking if there was only a controlled one controlled purchase but no informant kind of adding some context to that controlled purchase i acknowledge it wouldn't be as good but because the test here is just we're dealing in probabilities and not certainties or a prima facia case i think that probably would be enough and the government didn't cite this case but in henry an unpublished decision of this court they found that  sure and that's that's my only point from henry anyway now the district court's analysis though because it overlooks the controlled purchase focused instead and treated it as if this whole war at the magistrate judges judge's decision rose and fell on the reliability of the informants just information focused instead on the fact that  kind of a history with the informant in fact the magistrate or the district court actually went outside the four corners of the affidavit and referred to hearing testimony twenty two of the record you can see the district court said well you know the agent who was also the right and then and there not legally what the reason there was a hearing were evidence was taken was that at the same time that the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the search warrant he also filed a motion to suppress statements  correct and it was not just a legal mistake to kind of go outside those four corners it was actually a factual mistake i think just an error of memory because if you look at one thirty eight of the record during the testimony what he actually said was i've known that informant for over two years and at least two search warrant say that the person inside is known to them they've been inside they've seen the person storing selling or whatever of the contraband in the apartment and there may not be a lot of the detail in that statement so supreme court has has instructed issuing magistrates to not act as legal technicians but to act as reasonable people applying a flexible and easy to apply probable cause standard and so because that's what their task is to do to not really even so much be a legal technician but a common sense pursing right then when the district court reviews that decision they're asked to apply a deferential review of that decision is a commonsense probability based decision more likely than not and so whereas i think there are instances where an agent or a police officer might bring an affidavit to the issuing magistrate and say this is what i hsieh i think you're right judge donald that practically speaking there are times that they like this isn't enough go get more and they do and they come back with a revised affidavit but once we get to the review process now the question is just within those four corners right didn't you have a substantial basis to make that determination that's the that's why it's not to novo review of the magistrate situation and so you know my colleague has raised a hypothetical in briefing which is well what if the seller described in this affidavit was just a casual visitor to the home you know that that seems kind of unfair to the i guess to the house right the house could be innocent but here again that first factually that doesn't really square what with what is in the affidavit which says that the seller traveled in a car registered to the house that implies a kind of comfort and demeanor control of the house plus you have an informant saying co right that's right and so when my colleague points to other cases where there is there are other cases are going to look at other affidavits where there's a lot more information about the informants past but often those cases don't have a cr cooperation from a controlled purchase of the cocaine something so clearly verifying the informant and so you don't have to have all of it you just have to have enough for the magistrate judge to have tested what the informant said like thank you good morning your honour's let me begin by just addressing your new issue that the government raised in its brief there i think is incorrect and that is that the government in its reply brief states that there were three issues that i raise for the first time on appeal and i don't want to belabor the issue but that statement is just is just didn't correct if the court looks at the brief that i submitted page three in four of the brief that i submitted with the motion that was filed the motion to suppress that was filed in the district court and if the court looks at pages ten through twelve of the transcript of the motion to suppress the court will see that all the issues that would raise in my appellate brief were addressed to the to the district  understanding is that the judge is limited to the four corners interview the four corners of the affidavit in the affidavit it doesn't say that mr jones left this this house the affidavit states black in color bearing michigan registration such and such said vehicle is registered to a sharon jones sixteen twelve copeman boulevard the city of flint there is nothing in the affidavit from which it could be inferred that this black male was a resident of sixteen twelve copeman we don't even really know based on the investigation of the into a vehicle registered at sixteen twelve whole suggests that he is not just a casual visitor but has some substantial connections residence now i mean this is not beyond reasonable doubt so once again why is that not a commonsense inference that he has some substantial connections and i think there certainly is a legitimate concern but again you have to go back to the information that's within the affidavit that is all absolutely but what we don't know is that this black male ever return to that residen and yes there are times where i have let my card to people who are at my house we do not know based on the information in the affidavit who that blackmail was all we know he never returned to the residence well it but what the let the cat confidential informant saying is that dea is selling drugs from that residence confidential informants set up a controlled with d d comes out of the residence goes to be controlled by with drugs now that would seem to be pretty compelling evidence that he is selling drugs from that address what we have and again that's a legitimate concern but again in the affidavit what we have in the affidavit is that this confidential informant says that drugs are being several reasons one is that we don't know anything about why the affiant considers the cafe dental informant reliable and credible zero zero and here's the fundamental problem right i wasn't the actions of mr jones that are observed first hand by the officer why don't those as judge draw as totally corroborate  cares because you know the corroboration and that's a good question but the answer is that we do not know that the drugs were coming from the house we do not know that the person who left the house here though if i'm a guest there it's that out of the house and he's got the drugs he goes straight away to a drug deal you go straight away to drive your own self cocaine and we do not know that he  informant has been searched prior to the meeting with the so we know that the confidential informant did not have drugs on him at the time that he first met with di absolutely and i am not saying that the drug transaction did not take place there is no question in my marriage my the based on the information in the affidavit that the drug transaction took place the problem is the ma went to the car went to the designated location so the drugs that's why the magistrates making that inference that is correct but based on the information in the affidavit we do not know what happened after that person left the house we do not know whether he stopped someplace else to get relevant that we don't know what happened after he left the house because that's relevant to the inference whether drugs are located in the house that's why it's important that we don't know whether this person ever returned to the house first of all we don't know that this person was a resident of the house second of all we don't know what this person did when it's residency though really the requirement no because you read cases all over the place where people operating stash houses where there they have a transaction point they don't reside there but they have control and a connection to that location so i'm not sure why we keep talking about resident residency is not critical residency is only important to whether or not the magistrate can infer and that's really what this case is about can the magistrate infer from the fact that a male a black male left the house that was eventually that was the subject of the search warrant he we do not know where he picked up the drugs we don't know that he got the drugs out of vehicle from the house to the location of the control by so he didn't stop anywhere well again we don't know that information is not in the affidavit your point if he might have had the drugs proud of getting to my point is he may have had the drugs prior to obtaining a prior to leaving the house or he may have stopped and got the drugs the information from the affiant says we followed him but it doesn't go into the details of what he did and again if we don't know that he ever returned to that house then we don't know that that house is being used as some kind of stash for drugs that's why it's critical it's not the residency if he was definitely a resident and you knew he was a resident then you could infer ok he's probably storing drugs at his home but we don't know that this is his home and we don't know that he ever came back and if he never came back there's a very good chance that that's not where the drugs will stand the only critical decision for the magistrate is looking at the totality of the circumstances is there probable cause to believe that drugs would be located in that house you're just arguing based on a standard different than the one we have to apply probable cause here probability that is correct and that's the the reviewing court and this court it's my understanding this court is to reviews the decision as to whether or not the affidavit is sufficient and whether or not the good faith exception should apply that's really a dunno vote decision for this court and it would be and the united states supreme court has made it very clear that there's a limit we have to give deference to the magistrate but there is a limit and it would be my position that this affidavit in itself is so deficient because you know that first of all again we don't know we don't know why the affiant thinks that the cafferty ensure informant is reliable that's not fatal nothing is fatal when you look at the totality of the circumstances gates was an anonymous tip trey pair was an anonymous tip it's not fatal if there is extensive investigation here all they did was they surveyed the after the shows it's reliable and it's a significant thing and again we don't know what the tip is he says drugs are being sold out of this house and other places in flint we don't know where he got that information exactly there's none of that and if you look at the other cases that's what they focus on how did the reason i just you know the other cases don't have the officer of somebody come out of look at the other cases and look at the extent of the investigation where it was just a tip the investigation woods in mit in several of the other cases the investigate investigation was so much more thorough than what you had in this case and i'd have to go back i've got a list of cases but the cases that i'm thinking of there's usually more than one by did they staked out the house or the confidential informant given specific information about where in the house the drugs with were were were you know were located they get information they have they observe the house they see who goes in and who goes out of the house they get information about who resides at the house all they did in this case is watch the person leave the house and again they don't even know that he ever came back all they do is watch the person leave the house and go to a controlled by they know that the car he was driving is registered to a sharon jones at that address but they never did any investigation to establish that she really does reside at that address they're going question thank you sir thank you honour's paragraphs as judge roth pointed out paragraphs nine and ten of the affidavit you will see that there was continued surveillance not just on the confidential informant but on the suspect from the house to the control affidavit very grudgingly and that's something that the supreme court has expressly rejected and gates and that this court sitting on bumped it in alan as well so because the district court reached the wrong conclusion in this case and the magistrate judge who issued this w