america versus stephen shane hall mr  that was filed in the case and heard before the magistrate judge and referred to the district judge we've contended in this particular issue that search warrant was based on so many errors that made it unconstitutionally  of course we all know that under the fourth amendment all searches are unreasonable unless they fit in there under certain exceptional circumstances and this is a case where the court has to decide just what limits has to be placed on what types of mistakes and misinformation can serve as the basis of of the of a search that would not be violated of the fourth amendment i submit that under the facts situation this case any one of these errors that was set out in the boat the warrant to support the search for both the affidavit to support the short war in the war in itself any one of them would probably not be enough to invalidate search but the cumulative effect of all of these us submit is what makes it constitutionally and  farm i don't think we have great disagreement on the law between the breaks in this case this court has to review the evidence that's in the light most favorable to the prevailing party which of course in this case is the government but we submit stretches the bounds of reasonableness and what makes an unreasonable there's a list of things that compound in the air the first is the information was based on hearsay that was told to the  was inaccurate because the confidential informant was perhaps not as well informed as he should have been there was some evidence that questions some of the conclusory statements that are in the affidavit the location was searched that was searched was not the location that was accurately described mr that some of the misinformation that we submit and it was disputed in the in the trial court was that mr hall was not the record was disputed whether he was in charge and control as officer strauss concluded in his affidavit more significantly the warrant shows it was signed it nine forty five pm on august thirty one but the return in the inventory submit when we decide what's the basis of those of a search and it's based on misinformation that sworn to what words mean things and this that's what i think this court has to decide is how far do we allow the boundaries to be stretched with misinformation and simply write it off as of this was just a trivial err more importantly there was evidence also that the entry was made at nine eleven pm on august thirty one two thousand thirteen which is thirty four minutes before the warrant was issued that's another thing that i think the government was that was just a mistake it was testimony that that was a mistake but how many mistakes do we allow to support such a search rehab i do not know the answer that i don't recall that from the from the record well to for him to be residing there it doesn't have to be permanent it has to be indefinite with there's no reason to think that it is not at least indefinite i agree with that fact situation that's one of one of the factors for the court to consider also thought there was a surveillance camera there for several months that an officer saw him come in gallons take a period of time i recognize it too but that's just one of these factors that have set out that and that is a conclusion that he made and there is some evidence to support that but when you take all of these other should tolerate past the boundaries of reasonable that's that's the touchstone of the fourth amendment analysis and as as a point we don't disagree on the law we just disagree only application of the law to the facts so  what is the evidence to show that it was clearly erroneous that that this was not not an intentional or or was done with reckless disregard but i don't so don't argue that it was intentional i just argued that it this is the standard that this court should set should not tolerate this number of errors to lead to the issuance of war and that's what demonstrates clear air in the case  in the government's worth even if there is a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule the inquiry should still continues if there's a novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and i submit that just on what we just discussed this officer could certainly use direction since he both calls the problems and benefited from it by the execution of the search warrant and as i said the government contends that these issues are trivial but once again the issue is how much air is allowed to cumulate before war is considered farm and does this court intend to allow the government to explain away erroneous facts upon wh warnings issued without any constraints at all not at the time frame on them the thing was was off but but you're not contending that they searched the house before the warrant was researched if you look at the dates it looks in of the times it appears that way but there is no evidence to indicate that they searched the home before they got to the search warrant no evidence other than the mistakes that were set out in the in the recording of it in the inventory and the dates which those may be  concluded well we all kind of assume those are typos and i think they probably are but how much of that this is according to one tolerate that's what i mean who wants to wait nine forty five and it was actually ten forty five an hour difference and an hour's different could you talk about the gun well there is an issue about that you know i wasn't prepared that for argument about the connection to the gun to y response to that rely on the brief and thus the court of course has questions regarding other counts turning to that first issue mr hall claims error in that the court denied the motion to suppress the standard review as the court noted  and that now from motion to suppress factual findings are reviewed for clear air and the ultimate conclusion is reviewed to know keeping in mind that evidence is viewed in light most favorable to the party pro prevail below which would be the government now mr hall is broken up this argument into subcategories and i'll try to efficiently work through those the first is that the info in the affidavit was not based on personal knowledge essentially what he's saying is detective strauss received information from detective he there was one person that was stopped with methamphetamine after leaving the house the activity at the house was based on his own observations was indicative of methamphetamine traffic and people would come for short periods of time leave  and all that led to him working on the war now in his in his affidavit your honor you're correct he says that i interviewed the confidential informant the magistrate judge went back and they looked at that very closely and they said at the hearing he admitted that he made a mistake he didn't interview that confidential informant he spoke to detective wilson the magistrate judge had an opportunity to assess the credibility of the officer and they found that he it was a labor day weekend he was coming back up another case this was a joint investigation with another agency as he's driving home he gets a call hey we got some activity at this house detective wilson i'm sorry convey some information to him he concede there was some sloppy work done here and absolutely your honor we can see that this wasn't the best police work that we've ever seen but we still are of the position that it doesn't amount to a situation in which we have to overturn that decision moving on to the second issue the place to be search was listed the wrong city detective strauss described this on page five eighty six and his explanation if you've been to this area actually makes sense the area is bridge city it's called that because there are two bridges that essentially go into the city there's a couple roads to the south in which you can get in but the area in the middle is commonly referred to as people there in law enforcement is bridge city the house that was searched unfortunately was in a small portion about a street over that's in orange county we submit that that's an honest mistake and as noted in the report recommendation on page nine in our brief was the a fire and executing officer there was no possibility the premises were searched and they said to us of the burke seventy four if second ten nine at the correct street address i'm sorry the correct street it was the correct street address but it was in bridge city it was in orange but it's not a situation when we get to particularly issues it's usually when they're searching apartment complexes duplexes cul de sacs where place can be easily strauss testified had had a schooner street but it was thirty minutes away in a small town there's no way these officers would have mistaken a place they've been surveilling for months to be thirty minutes away they knew the house they were going to search and they searched that house  the next point of there that mr hall contends that he didn't have control of the house is listed in the affidavit on pages five sixty three and five sixty four of the record testified that he knew to be married it's a logical conclusion when people are married no matter if they're going through merrill difficulties or not that they would live together and i'm page five ninety two when he was asked a was sand laid who did he expect to be there when the search was conducted he said mr cheney this is further cooperated by detective wilson surveillance which the court referenced a few moments ago on page eleven ninety seven of the record wilson indicates that he monitor the house for six to seven months before that time he saw mr hall coming and going as if someone would have when they live there and page twelve o five he saw mr hall working on a truck that was in the garage that same day the warrant was executed furthermore page twelve twenty five of the record on the day of the a now the next two issues that were referenced refer to some of the timing issues of the return an inventory that was sworn on august thirteenth two thousand and thirteen if you look at that warrant there's a date at the bottom of the signature that's typed in and it does say august thirteenth tw and that's initially concerning i certainly agree however when you look at the record of page five ninety two detective strauss testifies that what actually happened is they entered ten eleven and he knows this because he went to dispatch their police procedures are they don't call over the radio in these types of situations because if they're going to do the people who are monitoring it it's going to put the the lives of the officers in danger so they call from a cell phone he checked those records with dispatch and confirmed with the p that david it was actually ten eleven what happened is when he went need type his report he put nine eleven other officers have access to this and when these officers are executing search warrants they're not necessarily concerned with the exact time they're going in the word about their  lives so they went back and they looked at his report and put nine eleven so every subsequent report says nine eleven after strauss went back and he supplemented his or his report granted not in a timely fashion like we would like props up before months later but he didn't have any of the officers do the same so you have these reports with a conflicting time in conclusion with the first issue our position is the court didn't air in finding the officers executing the warrant relied on a good faith although not technically perfect although there were some mistakes i think you have to look at the totality of the circumstances one other thing to keep in mind is there was testimony throughout the trial that methamphetamine is a drug which moves rather quickly these officers have been surveilling it for this house for months and weren't able to pinpoint exactly the methamphetamine i thought was there they had two different agencies working on this they had to draft a search on the side of the road get to a judge's house on a holiday gathering of people that are working at a time in a small city to execute a warrant and i think when you consider all those factors there's going to be some stakes but we s that it doesn't invalidate the record which would indicate that he may have constructive possession of that backpack that backpack was found in a bed this room is extremely small it was found a better about an arm's length from him there was a bag on the floor in which the methamphetamine had been pulled of pulled from which is likely came from that bag however no one can say for sure whether that bag was open to tek if strauss doesn't remember shawn wilson who was the second person who entered the room after strauss he couldn't remember whether the bag was open he remember seeing detective strauss with it i understand the court's concern in that respect but it was evidence presented to the jury that it was possible constructive possession of a fire now as far as the three firearms in the truck there was testimony from detective firearms in clear view of anybody that would walk by and his response was absolutely if somebody was trying to hide them they weren't trying very hard they just kind of threw the curtain over there and if you combine that with shawn wilson's account where he saw  call around the truck working on it that day there was enough evidence there for the jury to infer that was the abbot the evidence presented at trial that it was another person that was at the residence truck but there's also evidence that in a phone call made from mr hall in which he said we need money for this truck and the insinuation in that phone call was that he was referring to getting money from drug trafficking so although that the truck wasn't technically registered to him he was seen with it he made reference to it and we feel that there was enough evidence for the jury to infer that very difficult because that what the testimony was was this was a shag carpet it was very sick it was something you'd probably see in the seventy's or an austin powers movie as i recall and the methamphetamine was it was deep down in there and they are trying not to poke their hands in the method to me cut themselves destroy the evidence they're also trying to walk around the small room that's already crowded and has stuff all over based on the pictures so they have gloves in there down there trying to trying to pick it up and i believe that issues are all adequately before this court session meeting i think is just for this court to determine if this is a case that requires instruction to law enforcement or are we going to allow all searches to be cute the court affirms that in all searches can be conducted with this to fix this i'll try kurt was a type and a truck what was it about it as i recall i believe there's of i was not crop counsel but i believe the influx could be made that he was talking about the particular truck that was there but i don't know that specifically i wouldn't trouble so you get i think courts time thank you mr barlow i believe your court appointed is that correct but thank you very much for your for your service for the court it's my understanding that the lawyers in the next case of volunteer to take on the next criminal appointment from this