both as a principle and ending in the bad thing since that siri didn't go to the jury why is that important that's a good what that opinion means but usually we wait until the case actually raises the issue before we give our opinion on it and the government has said the jury was not asked to decide the exactly your question and i think again that's what i was saying about the confusion i think that he was charged with aiding and abetting and there was a mention of that in the first instruction to the jury and the in store instructions included as one of the alternatives that he participated in the venture so i think it's possible that the aiding and abetting the jury might have consider the aiding and abetting because they were never  about anything offending and i have to say i'm just it's a muddle to me that aiding and abetting can be considered part of the crime and so i don't know that the jury instructions a little bit with the verdict form would have had to even say it in the bed and because he was charged with aiding and abetting so you know the jury may not have distinguished between the two but i just simply don't know i'm saying that's an example of what's the confusion between being a principal and being in a they're in the better and when there was never any other person named and it isn't just the mere fact that there was no identification there was no other person but yet the jury and i mean the instructions included the phrase he persisted in the venture so that would imply that there could be other people and there were other people mentioned  trial like dollar so i you know i don't think we know what the jury really convicted i mean i totally agree that the jury verdict form did not say he's only convicted of aiding and abetting that's correct and that's on the other cases in other circuits the conviction was simply for writing and abetting but that was never make the jury one way or the other so i think again i think yes example the confusion with aiding and abetting kind of thrown in willing nellie in the charge without ever explaining how it  burden of proof erdman three or so whatever for principle versus aiding and abetting so it's not clear which the jury was focusing on in this case and in terms of the plane air argument by the government there was the two thousand and fourteen amendment and it to me it's also confusing what's new because it now has an exception to the player requirement that the motion has to be brought before a trial which is an exception is that information would be available was available and would not wouldn't have to have a trial of rule on it and again you wouldn't know necessarily what was going to be brought into trial whether the aiding abetting was going to be discussed  the district court did not instruct the jury on aiding abetting in its final charge and consistent with that the jury verdict form with respect to both counts one counts do two did not say anything about aiding and think if you're taking a step back from this case that might be something that would be helpful for different judges on the other hand if my focus the jury on exactly the wrong its discretion in denying the what was styled as a motion to exclude because that really was a motion for reconsideration and the district court in its decision partially granting partially denying the motion to suppress had noted that the parties had not addressed the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the victim's cellphone but found that it was retrieved from the ultimate with the victim's  consent and it was only thereafter that the defendant filed a motion to exclude arguing that the government had subsequently retrieve the additional information from the cell phone  not for raising arguments late that could have been raised earlier it was not an abuse of discretion in these circumstances for the courts to deny these but i will say in addition just additional aspect of that there are as the district court noted the circumstances regarding the retrieval of the phone from the album i had not not only had they not been addressed in the briefs but they had not been brought out and during the suppression  hearing so for example we don't know what and whether there was a fourth amendment intrusion at all or the scope of that intrusion because all the record reveals is that trooper morris retrieved the phone from the alt now that could that could range from if the car door was open and phone was simply in the car door of the the armrest of the car it's not clear that that would be a fourth to a situation where you have a car say with an electronic high where you know you would have to pry open the electronic hide now there's nothing in the record that indicates that that was the case but at the defendant's burden of bottomless to show that there's been a as i just i don't think we've argued in those terms i think in a fact we have argued that you know the touchstone of the fourth amendment of course is reasonable nest and it was reasonable for him to act and retrieve the phone in those circumstances giving given the different stories he was being told the fact that he was concerned the fact of the fact that she said that she was living with her mother self suggested that she might be a minor fee and so given the balance that of information that he was receiving from the defendant and the victim and the varying stories that he was being told balanced against the absence of a record of whether or not there was a fourth consent to the retrieval of her own self adelman you reserved two minutes in terms of the charge of aiding and abetting i think as i said i think that's the last kind of model right now but at a minimum he was charged with aiding and abetting himself which the eleventh circuit in martin said that's not that's not in office so i think there certainly was an error there now whether the jury thought he they were convicting him of aiding and abetting i don't know i can't say that the justice souter pointed out the jury verdict form does not say that but on the other hand i can't say that they didn't think that either i just simply don't know in terms of the pro se brief i did not prepare that but  point i would raise is that the district judge ruled that the about the males interest of privacy in her own phone but he did not seem to discuss whether