our final case of the day is united states against  this bat thank you your honor mr pettus had a set a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment that he was leasing to store his household goods in after his mr benn let me tell you what my problem is suppose he has a reasonable expectation of privacy and suppose that there was no probable cause for the warrant under le is not permitted unless any reasonable police officer would have known there was no probable cause and here we have one district judge and three appellate judges of the state of illinois all holding that there was indeed probable cause now even if they're wrong how was any reasonable police officer spose to know they were all wrong well your honor of course if the police make a false statement in the af davit to get the search warrant then the leone good faith exception does not apply and here as we argued in our motion i think one of the critical  misleading and just simply not true part of the war is that it is paragraph fahed where it says complainant in apathy and officer john lee states that on this date at this time officers located kevin pettus in the common area four zero seven south state officers advise he may have been inside his apartment prior to their arrival neither of those are true he was  some in the common area of this apartment building was i think any reasonable person reads that load says hey that's what he would have taken into custody yet taken into custody a block and a half away and it's important my question in a more concrete way sure has this court ever held in a case where the district judge found that a warrant was in fact supported by probable cause circuit ever held that i understand that the district court did not find there were any materially false statements in the candidate a district court found probable cause my question is is there any case where the district court has found probable cause where this court or you can name any other circuit has held that the conditions for suppression order leone were satisfied you may disagree with that you may disagree with the district judges finding that there was no intentional misstatement but my general question is has anybody ever said that when after a district judge has found probable cause that normal laughs the evidence had to be suppressed because the officer should've known there was no problem because in my answer is no but then my answer that's not my argument  not be your argument but it is the hurdle you have to get over in order to prevail judge bruce's opinion his order never addresses our allegation that the statements that he was located in the common areas in the statement that officers advised he may have been inside his apartment prior to their arrival were untrue he the ellen only appellate court addressed that issue judge bruce did not his opinion the part that the brief part that talks about the merits does not mention that at all and we argued in our motion in two different places that those were false statements and so obviously because judge groups didn't find that there were he just didn't address it he didn't find that if you take that out there is not probable cause because he apparently considered it because he never said he wasn't concerned because if you take that out then you have there is a shooting in not only if you take it out if you put the accurate information in there is a shooting and nine minutes later mr pettus is arrested a block and a half away from the apartment building you take out he was located which again the only way a judge reading this would interpret that is this that's what the police officers took him into custody you take that out and the statement that officers advised he may have been inside his apartment prior to their arrival implies somehow that they had some evidence somebody saw something to support that when in fact it's not true in fact officer leap in explaining where he got that from that came from another officer calling out over the radio and this was documented in the what was government's exhibit one at the hearing and it's attached as a the last exhibit in the government's appellate brief they call it their dispatch ticket one of the officers simply said we're looking for the gun he may have had time to go into his apartment an officer leaves that this one officer statements that mr may have had time to go into the apartment was the basis for officer leave writing officers advice he may have been inside his apartment prior to their arrival and it is our position and i think it's correct that is misleading and it's intentionally misleading to so there's indication the record an officer of deserved mr paris mr patterson around the common area right here correct  yes it's a you shaped apartment complex and the officers driving across along the road it basically looks into the year and there's just a big open grassy area the officer spots lights the area sees somebody does not identify him as mr pettus when he says that he got to drive past the apartment building to get into the parking lot for the building the officer then walk away so there's no doubt that the officer then when he got up to where paris was in custody the officer said hey i think that's the guy that i saw so they did see him there i but because the the argument is well he had enough time to do all of this stuff the more you try inside oh we got him right outside the common area of his apartment so therefore he's got time i think is the sept of because the time he it takes for him to walk a block and a half that's included in this nine minutes between the call coming in and mr pettus getting arrested a block and a half in the whole idea of well he may have been in the apartment is based on that the elapse of time with the more time you take out of that the less probable it becomes that he went inside and put the gun in there and so the whole point of franks is that if the officers make false statements to the judge to get the warrant that the officers don't get to then come back and say under leone well hey we went and got a warrant the way you told us to do so give us a break but when you cheat to get the warrant you don't get to then say oh well we had a warrant so we have good faith and that is our argument and i'll save the rest of my time for a mr brown i think you know me please the court i don't believe that the franks intentionally false allegation was part of the briefing on why this  this court pointed out multiple judges have already said there was sufficient probable cause so no officer would be incorrect to rely on that warrant a couple of the fosses i'd like to address these so called  falsehoods the officer did identify that the person he saw in the courtyard was kevin pettus of course he didn't identify him when he initially saw him there's no evidence that he knew who kevin pettis was at that moment but when he sees him moments later and says that's the man i saw it's not misleading to say he was located in the common area if i see i see the picture on the bench that is not misleading to say that because it is located on the bench it's not a misleading statement the second supposedly misleading statement is that the officer said he had time to be in the apartment while of course we know that is true because the firearm with his d n a which dispelled the shell casing at her apartment was found in that apartment so it's not misleading to say he had time because of course he did have time and there was i think a nine minute window between when the call came in at about three one thousand and three twenty eight when they're on the scene so he had time to be in the apartment and it's clearly documented if you look at governments appendix two at three thirty four there's even a notation that says officer said he hit the subject had time to be inside argument and she said i'm going to call the police and that's when he i think it was as she's getting her phone out to call the police on the shots fired so i think it's in very close proximity and then a three eighty month time call yes you're the stan taco matching the description except for perhaps the last two numbers it's got a warm hood it's three o'clock in the morning and then they see him house he has the keys to that top hole in his pocket when he sees a block from the who i think is found about ten minutes later three twenty eight at the apartment complex that is between four and seven minutes away so he has a window of six to three minutes at that point i think we did argue with our motion to suppress both pages four and five and pages nine that leap statement about where mr post was located and about having time to be in were false statements those were argued your honor he as to the timing of when things happened tetched to the government's brief in this case appendix one is the dispatch ticket from champaign county police and it has a minute and second by second a blow by blow of what happened the shot fired three eighteen and mr bombs right the testimony was is that miss russell literally had her phone in her hand saying i'm calling the police and that was what she claimed cause mr pedestals you missed the officers took the officers that took mr pettus into account this was in the testimony and i apologize i can't remember if it was from the motion to suppress hearing or at the actual trial was that when they said i made the comment out with one that's when the officer who arrested mr pettus walking down the street