conceded that an illegal detention did occur so the question in this case is whether the statements that mr perez made after the illegal detention but and after probable cause was that help flowed from the the illegal illegal detention the statements that occurred after that the second is the intervening circumstances that occurred between the illegal detention of the illegal government action and the statements that occurred in the third is the placement of the police misconduct develops subsequent to that illegal detention automatically attenuates the think that it is one cure all why would it why would we why would he want to ask us to adopt such a broad rule well  defendant has exercised the fairness own free will or an exercise of his own free will to make those statements now need to be in circumstances been defined as an appearance before a magistrate court discussions with an attorney or subsequent released from custody therefore the other issues as far as the temporal proximity of the frequency of police misconduct don't apply and this is this is exactly what happened in brown in that case the district court determined that looking at pages one forty nine of one fifty of the of the record and it looks to me that the district court steps probable cause in this case that would be very different from what you've represented to the court which is a put district court said that probable cause minutes temporary detention illegal governments made a mistake your client may have a nine hundred eighty three action against the against the border patrol and four for his temporary detention but we've got seven hours that intervened since that two minute incident primary area and without any any explanation he was ordered out of the car handcuffed now i would agree and the record is clear that it was only for several minutes and he was taken to a security office and they handcuffed moved and he was the change in the security office and then taken to a cell i think for for a young man with no prior more force who contacted that is something that would allow the government to gain a psychological advantage over him later on when they interrogated him and i think that is something that would go into the analysis but that's not something that the court in this case i believe considered i don't believe that it considered because i believe the court ruling was people they have probable cause to arrest right right and what was the manner in which the teams custody of the person well he went into his house when the aren't allowed to go into the house to gain custody of him but they were within their rights to have custody something out which is flowing in sequence temporally from the handcuffing well then you're asking us to say that because now that the they found the marijuana in the truck and before they do anything i mean you don't know that unless one does an analysis of whether the handcuffing had some impact on whether or not this young one thousand year old may have blurred something out as a result of this rough treatment by the border s is there was a reference in fact counsel said that under these facts we don't know that they didn't gain the psychological advantage later when they interrogated him well actually the facts of this case are he was handcuffed briefly for two minutes do you read the district court as having gone through that analysis or do you read the district court as having ruled that as a matter of law because they developed probable cause didn't need to go through any of that an not agree that the district court ruled as a matter of law that every time that probable cause is developed there is nothing else to look at the district court heard all of the arguments she heard all of the evidence  supported by the facts and supported by the rule by that law rather she made reference to the intervening in the penny intervening probable cause which was the government's theory she did but she limited to the facts of this case she did not make some green ruling that that is not just so then i understand in this analysis are you saying as a matter of law or some point as a matter of fact under the actual facts of this analysis it could have no impact because are all these other events as you've just laid out or is it your position and talking harris that as a matter of law even though there was a constitutional violation of the outset of the statement by the police officer that was likely to incriminate our eliciting incriminating response from this the correction but none of that was was before the district court at all the only way that actually mout in this was in the briefs that were  on the this court and isolate the district court or characterize the district court ruling in the fashion you did then you better be prepared back it up in court not by twenty a trailer ok i understand the health thank you