and eventually convicted on a felon in possession as a result of his prior record he was sentenced as an armed criminal career criminal two hundred eighty months though there was pretty good argument that nobody really had evidence that ak can see or keesey and the woman were married or living together and that means it's not a domestic violence applicable state law but it looks as though that ground was not urged when the motion to suppress was made in the district court and since it was not urged but it's waived under right after comey what the answer to that is well i don't necessarily disagree with your ire that the of the fact is that i mean i've been looking for quite a while one for just cause so this court can look at something else i guess one of my answers to the court would be that the argument to the district court was a probable cause of arguments  in order to have probable cause there must be a showing of a relationship between this woman and this man when you haven't pointed the officers talked to the woman didn't i mean she said she was his wife the my impression in reading all the pleadings as well as the motions present were that there was a significant assumption made by the lawyers close to this case and others after he had been arrested after the police officer had entered the mobile home after the police officer  the term and there were various items in the mobile home that quote didn't belong to him because they were aware of his name based on a call made to the term and the license plate number and the owner of the vehicle that they and talk or that the concern was for that officer whether she was hurt or assaulted has initially she indicated to them that it was no big deal nothing happened and then she broke down and g more information else but she did not at that time indicate she was his wife that's my understanding and the assumption was that she was  right to do certain things and i believe that that was misinformation or a bad s the on the police officers part and i don't think that they were actually aware of the relationship of the parties i gather qualities that really still don't have anything i ran away her problem as as i do not have you have to have a warrant if you're going to arrest for a misdemeanor i think there are many lawyers that don't understand there's a lot of variation on that right i think it is not something that would necessarily jump out at a lawyer obviously old show was cited me as a motion to suppress the statute which talks about with or without a warrant in a domestic violence or a domestic case it seems to me and i have no truck with the fact that i'm not i'm not sure what the state could have shown based on all the testimony based on everything i've read only after they brought her sequence right and stuart calls police come at start calls about two people fighting in the parking lot police car and man and a woman they pretty much assume it's a t v without really had a lot of attention to it arrest him and ground inside and that that's critical well and then she says half the scene once he arrives there he has to locate the woman because she's not there they understand that the man has gotten into a motor home and left the area they then talk to the woman  radios another police officer who's in an unmarked car who with then five minutes i believe the record is finds this other vehicle and which point he then approaches the vehicle at some point later they greying the woman i miss josh to the scene it is only at that point and that she makes any plain to the vehicle and obviously following that and they do find as i under stand it articles related to her living in the vehicle because that in the record before the court in other words what the government presented to the to the court there is no expressed statement of that fact the government did not present it because the defendant didn't raise as an issue the defendant raised three issues in these two motions to suppress and so as a result of the fact that the defendant did not raise it the government did not respond to it is the government's understanding pertinent part so the domestic violence actions but makes no mention of the certain definitions of domestic relationship so not once but twice the defendant had a shot at raising this argument and did not raise the argument and also then construed it both including c n n in open court that there was the relationship in this particular case so as the defendant is noted in a right case the government believes that this issue's been w in the courts that discuss the issue of potential cause and the government's not aware of any parts of the defendant could raise in this case the defendant conceded the issue the parties to the man and then when the defendant being a friend in which this court has clearly ruled that the apprentice rules with respect the use of prior convictions does not apply in other words the government did not have to present the prior convictions to a jury in prov  the age of these convictions the government was unable to find it ninth circuit decision on this but there was five other circuits have all ruled that there's no time constraints with respect to the use of the age of  one officers at the kmart here interviews the employee first then mr keyes his wife is called out of the bathroom they make a determination that they have probable cause to arrest him for domestic violence they have the name of mr keith and they have a description of the ickle another officer receives a radio call be on the lookout for this motor home he sees a motor home that fits the description of the motor home but he doesn't have a lot of information at that point he goes up to the motor home it's a motor home that in and pictures were offered in at the at the lower court that i thought this was the when you say motor home the word is used in the industry to mean those things that sit on it and they stay there and it's also use i mean what people drive to their fishing holes and i took it when i look at this the p c had in fact driven this just a few minutes before correct that it's the kind that you drive or is more about it it's an id motor it's not a mobile home it's a motor home so it has an engine has a driver's compartment he drove it from the kmart basically around the corner to and was basically hiding in an apartment complex that he had no connection to near where he had just had the incident with mistrust his wife and i say and understood that the government had no occasion to put on