get one of the specific underlying issues of the probation he said with regard to the probable cause if you with regard to the whether or not mr king actually had possession of law enforcement officers had probable cause to believe that he actually possess the gun i think it's important to keep in mind one specific thing frequently the defense attorneys are reminded that it's important to take into account the totality of circumstances and not to divide up specific facts in this case i think it's  telling the circumstances that the law enforcement officers need to take into account when force and officers are not allowed to ignore evidence that weighs against a finding of probable cause and here there were significant facts that weighed against a finding of probable cause specifically st the location of where the gun was found hidden in a dresser drawer in a room that belong to michelle that i don't know about which there was substantial evidence however that your client belong to your client that's not probable cause that they were there both in a room with a gun in effect they're not really both there because your client takes off but they're both in the room with a gun because your client's flight and  you would say i don't know and then one of them was under way that's not your case i understand under those circumstances would we would we have more than fifty percent with respect to the guy runs away i think given the nature of we're calling running away in this case that that that would not push the envelope to probable cause for a few reasons one we know that there was a protracted police involvement in front of the house they were in front of the house for more than half an hour prior to commencing the search we know that they secured the residence for at least ten minutes before entering there were two officers and we have body can footage showing that they were behind the residence just waiting there for ten minutes before that they entered the home so we know that mr king did not leave in response to them coming and he did not fully officers coming and when did he leave the house and what at what point in this thirty minute time frame that all the officers on the only information office had at the time  spoke to michel the grandmother who indicated that he had the last while the officers were present so we know the president outside talking with michelle yes and didn't she say when she was questioned that  was in the house she didn't say yes she didn't say that he was she the wife says my husband is in the house and then i guess it's his mother in law who says that he left when there was this commotion the commotion obviously being the police what and when and and he leaves among other things in the room his car keys in other words this this and other belongings this has all the year marks of someone leaving in a hurry i mean they rather time they got into the house he was gone well again and we don't dispute that he left during the time that the officers were there but again the officers were present before  entering the house it's an extended interaction with myself outside the house for half an hour i have to do with whether he ran out when the officers arrived that's the the inference is that that's what caused him to run again i don't think it's accurate to refer to it as running the fact that michelle to be actually writing run because there was no one chasing him but he left he was the police with there and there's a reason to infer that the reason he left b was because he knew what was in the room and he didn't want to be caught by the police i don't think that that's necessarily a fair inference on these facts certainly he left it could be inferred that he left in response to the police but i  it was it was i believe one car and then they encountered his wife who was on probation for assault and for a variety of reasons they became concerned that they might need help well arrest statement whether that's in this is what troubles me about your briefing in this case there's not a lick of argument about that there's nothing i mean not every post arrest statement that follows an illegal arrest this is should be excluded are fruit of the poisonous tree analysis is is like everything else a fourteen point test that looks at all sorts of things and your brief never makes a single argument about why if the arrest was illegal there's all the briefs you're says because of the rest was illegal the statement must be suppressed and that's not so i mean it might well be suppressive zero but we'd look at we look at how soon it was there again because we didn't believe that it was being contested because the government has never claimed that there should not of the well the opening brief you don't know what the government's going to contest when you file the opening brief that's already contested below i mean you c can well anyway let's assume that defer my benefit there wasn't probable cause for the rats but statements that would you argue should be suppressed he was just and there is evidence in the record  shows that he was taken immediately to the station he was questioned there and it was fun to questioning he stated that the gun belonged to him that statement was included in the stipulated facts that were relied on by the  let's remove the statement again belong to him from the case was when the police be able to determine whether or not they can belong to him anyway i mean i guess hypothetically there was no evidence that was ever turned over with regard to d n a or fingerprint testing that was done on the gun and the absence of that i think it's an extremely thin case and with regard to whether or not it would be harmless would be the government's burden to prove that was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and i don't think they could do that so if the stamen were suppressed really haven't we have to have a on it but everything that was before that was associated with mr king was found in the bed there was in the book there with a book that he was studying it was open but they found the registration to his car they found in affected a book with notes in the room  he found his keys in the room again they found letters addressed to him at that address in the room shouldn't they couldn't he couldn't magistrate judge or somebody or us reasonably conclude from that that he lived in the room with her he doesn't have any belongings that you would expect somebody to have in the room if they were living that there's no close alternately come out i know it doesn't matter because depends on what they knew at the time that he did live there you know what their reality he spent the night there the night before  out the address of the registration and there's one digit off from the house of his wife's and on the dresser itself there's no at least according to google there was no the house where his car is registered to there minus unless it was a typo i haven't specifically looked at it this is just based on my information again this is not information the officers had later in the case that mr king was residing with his grandmother and that he had spent the night at his at his wife's residence and that wasn't something that was super uncommon nobody's disputing that he was a regular visitor that they were married but the question is this gun was hidden in a drawer in a room that had every indi that it was controlled by his wife a woman who was on probation for an offense involving a gun now while it's true that the police can have probable cause to arrest two people for the same offense two people could have possession something of that effect in this case where the that is that different than possession yes because constructive possession requires that the government have evidence to show that the one million in control over the room which is why it's important that they're not so it doesn't matter that he doesn't live there he spent the night here  now i understand there's no it doesn't appear that he has a dresser in the room so that makes it a little bit different but not living there but why does it make it more probable than not we haven't got to fully hear it why does it make it more probable than not at that so they did arrest her and she was arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms officers also could arrest mr king because of the activities that that had happened right before the firearm was located as an honor is noted mr king was in the room that was undisputed he had unfettered access to the items in the room including the mail with two different dates containing his name and that address his keys as your honor noted for the car all that was registered a provided that declaration and that has been connection with the suppression hearing admitted invading that he stayed there the night before at the evidence sharing hearing the agent in this case testified this is it twenty three that patrice that's michelle told us that her boyfriend lived with her and she said various and then my partner came up with the name various king in addition we know from the interactions of the grandmother that the grandmother had indicated that mr king was also in that room as officers arrived he left and to be involved with the police and just living out the back there isn't like you got took his car and got his permit way he just sort of went for a walk and really didn't want to be around the police i can certainly understand that and that's one interpretation of his acts what officers could also consider is whether there was another interpretation and that's what this court has said that's not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing and we certainly can see that but it's one of the factors that officers could consider in determining who among the two people that occup that room at least for that night would have constructive possession of the firearm and then an important fact that i think is missing too from the analysis thus far is that officers knew that the defendant was a gun guy i think the testimony was that he was a gun dude  sure that the officers consider and that's evident from this court case for example in the united states versus nora where this court stated we have stated that criminal history can be helpful in establishing probable cause especially where the previous intervening years in between where the defendant had unlawfully possessed a firearm or at least was arrested for that very same crime we don't know whether he was acquitted or the charges were just never brought we know from the pre sentence report that ultimately put hardest were not  honor i think there so we would also agree that if the court finds that there isn't probable cause that the statements grounded the stipulated facts so that we couldn't make a harmless beyond reasonable doubt argument in connection with the statement but nonetheless we do also think that there was probable cause to support for the reasons we have identified i'm happy to address the argument that there wasn't sufficient evidence to believe that mr king was a stella and that's argument felonies involving drug offenses eighty nine in the police report that was submitted but the actual documents in connection with the opposition to the motion to suppress it states the records check revealed that king with a convicted felon and a document so officers indicated that it indicated that he had looked at his arrest history that arrest history would include the arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm which would also add to the fair probability that mr cain was a felon at the time that he was arrested you can w officer that the government elected to call at the evidentiary hearing there's no evidence whatsoever as to what the basis for that is there is evidence that they checked his record there is evidence that they did a record check on him before he was