percent control this matter but it is the underlying premise because both again hotel and the group this court has said that the particularity requirement as we know it whether we're talking about the place to be searched or the t to do a controlled life free and they don't break that down for her i think that's a problem but i haven't argued it here and they're going to allow the period of approximately fifteen minutes for the person to open it and examine the contents that i  packages thirdly with regard to the criminal history of mr robinson as i think most people experience in drug law enforcement you know the fact that you've got someone living there who has a conviction history for drugs and this conviction history is significant in terms of what was in the package how it was documented because there was not good documentation of the packaging of the marijuana how it was located within the sweaters whether they were male or female sweaters etc etc no photographs taken to document the packaging and that in terms of the trial issues was critical delivery and again we have the warrant not specifying the conditions for the anticipatory warrant for the controlled delivery but they are included in the warren application that was in washington state court affidavit why there was no mention of the marijuana found in the package and this i guess is speculation on my part but i think it explains it i think that what happened is that you had the federal package and then discovered the marijuana and meanwhile perhaps this affidavit already been presented to the state court judge what it comes down to this though your honor i think is that it's what you're and you used the phrase the magic words from illinois against gates affair probability we're not dealing in certainties here we're not dealing in proof beyond a reasonable doubt what we're looking for we're looking for proof of a crime contraband or evidence of a crime and we're looking for a fair probability that the hundred ninety nine drug convictions for criminal possession but we also have eight out there arrests for drug offenses of one sort or another now they're only described as arrests and i don't know whether convictions resulted from know detective evans goes on for two thirds of a page single spaced beginning with twenty eight years of police experience and then his training the various workshops and training sessions that he's attended and its participation in numerous drug arrests and his conclusion i think is unassailable that you know people who use drugs or sell drugs are likely to have drugs or drug paraphernalia or drug records or all sorts of things that are incident to track trafficking in drugs at their homes and so that's that's the basis for this conflict that's why i say if you have crime and it's  warrant question if you look at pages twenty two and twenty three of the x axis of record where the district court deals in the first instance with a motion to suppress the district court found probable cause before it even probable cause and we obviously we were asked one what judge civil found there are on pages twenty two and twenty three of the excerpts and i think you know mr robinson's criminal history figured in that finding of probable cause that can we see from the war an application that last paragraph that talks about a controlled delivery say well that doesn't work but let's look at what's said in the bottle and if you go through the body  that the way the government presented this to the judge in order for the judge to act on issuing the warrant that it was presented is the fact that we're going to make a controlled delivery can you sever that and say we're not going to look at that because this petition under the under n arrest and do a search so i'm wondering how you can sever that but i think what it comes down to is this is that i think you have to say that if you take the controlled delivery way there's still probable cause because you know the packages on route the package doesn't it's hard to find cases that don't just mean something pretty substantial you know of you know forty percent chance i don't know but not like two percent that's it that's another magic word a substantial basis if you have a package addressed to some persons that you know are hard you don't know anything about but the packages suspicious same packages here got this funny you know addressing and guest in addition to that you've got that someone in the house have some drug convictions and that's a morass which i don't think we can consider oh i don't know can we consider arrests without knowing that they let the was alerted to stop alerted and it's probable reasonable probability that there are drugs in the package and then all the control delivery paragraph says not only did we stop it the chain of control was that we opened it he didn't say that but it's going to be delivered and therefore it's going to go to the house she wouldn't go to the house it was going to be delivered to the us post office or to the courthouse so if the paragraph can be treated as it's time i have just several points that i would like to make first of all your honor with regard to rest i believe that i addressed that somewhat in my reply brief it's my position that arrests are an insufficient basis but i did find the splits in can alert and simply smell of illegal drugs as opposed to the actual presence of the drug and that i think needs to be pointed out in the context of the arguments that are made with regard to this that might be a their truck or it's had a friend's house or some other place like that or they go to a crack house frankly the government just in summary i would say cannot have it both ways they know it's a bad warrant so they're trying to re set up for the next case pl