arrest at the hotel and then as a result of the no probable cause for the arrest the statement that was given at least some less than twenty five hours later while he was in isolation is the fruit of the poisonous tree and then i also want to discuss the fact that the search of the safe in the equinox and the use it was a locked safe and the use of the papers  that belonged to mr bias against him violated his th amendment rights to be secure in those papers in effect a search warrant that was used did not have probable cause asked to him and therefore d it was a hot unlawful search and seizure with respect to the st point your honor the key for d your analysis and consideration is the facts of that hotel room in that hotel room or a front room wall then you go d down this hall and at the end of the hall it opens d up into the bedroom when you open the door of the embassy suite you look down the hall and see of the foot of the bet when you get to the bedroom the foot of the bed it's a  close to your left and if you don't hear a lot of the bed there's two and tables a critical component is that at the table in the bedroom and the five corner was a cell phone that was acting as a surveillance camera tells on lies there was videotaping everything that was going on in that room and feeding it outside the room and the other side of the bed was an arm walk this armoire was had cable that was wrapped up in cables and there was padlock in all of the evidence that the government seized in this case the police officers was found in that back bedroom because when you walk him into the bedroom your client sitting in the in the common area that was a bubble pipe which the officer testified as to that bubble pipe that was not in the rust the effect that was a misdemeanor that's on the record a citation under record that they could not isn't in the back room if you look in the garbage can back room that's where you have the the back at the empty plastic furthermore yonder nest in the back room where the head of the bat is there is a sink in that pillow case he found about ten pounds of meth wrapped up in blue plastic packaging similar to what was in the garbage everything was found in the back room and my argument is simply this that the fact that question from one of the officers about where would i find the drugs and he said in the anwar you know yes john but the question was when the officer had already done the search looked and saw that the iron wire had cable backpack what the big fight they found equinox manual importantly they found a speeding ticket for the license plate of that equinox and her name they also found four bullets that were like in a backroom at the fact that they found things under the sink behind the panel and he has no dominion control or possession interest on it and he has no comment and surprise interest that cannot be used against with respect to be independent source the search warrant like probable cause s mr baez the only way he's connected to destruct hefting enterprise is in fact the stuff that they found in the safe and equinox w even stand there for a couple of days it would seem rational that he would have a bit in the living room only counts could not have access to the bathroom and the reason for that you're on it is because of the bathroom was in the op leading to the bathroom and that debate was absolutely no reason whatsoever for him to go into the bedroom the bathroom is right outside the living room on the right hand side in the bedroom there's a sink in the bed and he did not have i asked what kay says that because as i understand it a search warrant issues based on probable cause the contraband or evidence of a crime can be found in a particular location so what case stands itself that indicates that a person is sick is to be secure in its papers and effects from on the lawful searches and seizures a th amendment was drafted because of the all writs cases that were happen in amendment requires a particular showing that you in order for them to trespass onto your own property out to all papers and effects in order for them to use that against they have to have something that you are involved in crimin there's nothing special about the innocent intent defense it's a trial tactic it's an argument that the government didn't meet its burden doesn't require notice to the government it doesn't have any effect on the elements of the offense it's like some other did did it defense where it's a you get a theory of defense instruction but the instruction cannot be inconsistent with the elements the label innocent intent is one that i i think the court should should use with caution it's misleading it's a proto fence label if it's put into a tree instruction the label is mis leading because when it's really an innocent motive defense and innocent intent defense is like the public authority defense where a party or undercover officer or a cooperate defendant as actual government  to deal drugs they buy drugs they sell drugs they join a conspiracy to sell drugs but their intent to do those things is innocent because they have authority that's different from what the court and other courts of called the if you are selling drugs because you want money selling drugs because you get drugs for your habit selling drugs because you love your spouse was dealing drugs selling drugs for revenge selling drugs for vigilanteism you don't have to have the same motive to join a conspiracy just have to have these same you have to intend to join a conspiracy to sell drugs and that's true for the substantive count as well you it doesn't matter what your motive is as long as your intent you're knowingly selling drugs and that's that's an intimate innocent mode of defense it's not one that entitles the defendant to a complete  it is argument that i'm a bitch a lanty that's good enough is that good that's a jury nullification defense misters they brought out from the group his own client on cross the fact that he was in fact dealing drugs and doing it over a long period of time as as to the arguments raised i want to address the st one point that may have been handled by mr sayid about the bathroom there was no evidence of any significance found in the bathroom that it was separate from the back bedroom or the it but there is plenty of probable cause if you even get to it i'd like if the court rules on waiver and independent source doctrine because sat through  now i've heard we've heard of two bathrooms this morning and you said no i don't think there i think mr sayid and i are saying the same thing there's only one bathroom where this thing was the same the sink was beyond the bed there were three sinks there was one in the front room there was one in the bathroom and there was one in the back bedroom and so it's the sink in the back bedroom where drugs were found not the sink in the bathroom or the sink in the front room it's confusing i understand but the to the extent that the problem cause overwhelming it's an argument to make in my mind both because the point one of the judges made that for the search warrant it doesn't have to be defended specific and i've cited cases in my brief that to that effect or at least one case because that's really all you need if it happens all the time that you go in on a warrant for a while looking for stuff for one person and you find it incriminates another and then you can use that evidence that's not who has a certain you're on certainly your honor in judged loken hit on something significant which is the methamphetamine pipe mr say that says well that wasn't enough for an arrest the officer testified that the officer was testifying and minnesota state law not federal law federal law controls and the meth and that one pipe by itself would have given probable cause we argued that in the district court at page twelve of our response i case come thing comes apart from the compartments and there's a receipt for twenty thousand dollars deposit and there's four thousand dollars cash and there's three badges and t e a there's somebody else involved somebody else drove the car somebody else uses the nd badge if they have to they go to the hotel where this person is staying and they find mr z its client and his wife and they go into the back they see they're smoking methamphetamine they go in the back room and see wrappers for methamphetamine they have a dog hit on the arm war from for drugs they have a dog hit on the economics for drugs misters they just said in his wife and by his wife's purse was the manual for the economics and a speeding ticket for driving the economics and the keys were sitting on the couch next to mr z its client the dog sniff of the economics alone is probable cause to believe that mr is a good client and his client's wife were involved in the drug trafficking i can go on but i just think it's absurd there's overwhelming probable cause  as to the point that i want to just finish on my point about waiver if the court rules on waiver i know it's easier to reach the meat of the issue when it's it's what unless you have other questions i'm going to rest on on my brief for the rest argument is that the search warrant a lot the government search the back bedroom the entire hotel room and the equinox when they searched equinox in the back of the equinox they found the say the safe was locked the safest lot at the time they opened the safe there probable cause for to search warrant had nothing on mr bice my argument is that they needed something they could open that safe surely and they could use it against on piano that bad there's no issue about that because he has no standing and they had legitimate probable cause to go after him but to use those papers and effects i guess mr baez on a search warrant has no probable cause as to him that's improper that's unreasonable and that you you caused me about cost me about thirty minutes of time by not citing and were on the decision in europe in your main breeze and i was i was reading these facts and i said i know these facts there was there was no way