correctly usually do not upset credibility terminations from the lower court on the pill but we believe and we have put in the briefing when a findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses if objective evidence contradicts the witness the story or the story so internally inconsistent or implausible that a reasonable fact finder would not credit the appellate court may well find clear error even though the district court fine was minutes and agent bryant ac from the f b i i think realized that there might be a little problem here with what's going on with this search going on because miss beatrice already custody or not they're arresting mr warwick detained for thirty five minutes already at that time and i'll go to the facts that support all those which mr warwick assigned them to third issue and judge or me who was the author of the women opinion order and i greatly respect her as a judge she did give herself like an insurance policy in regards to upholding this first search by finding the doctrine of inevitable discovery to apply to the search that was conducted of mr works trailer cars that block the ingress and egress there's nine agents they have tactical vest assault rifles weapons drawn and they knock on door mr warwick answers and that's where we start getting some of this credibility his his head and there was no debate of that when the agents with assault rifle for their own back had trained on the trailer you're arguing your argument almost mocks of sufficiency of the evidence even though you're applying it to a credibility question sure now is there any evidence that supports judge or me goes to finding that it was bolland or i mean that to me is the hill that you've got the car i'm because the evidence goes both ways your want enough to say the credibility here is no good well that's insufficient sequester is is there any evidence and i'm asking you are you look at the record too is there any evidence that would support y discussed what was going on and they at that point mr world was escorted to a different area where he was still under f b i guard and agent ac took over with it to which i would be very leery to use a word that this agent lied i have highest respect for this agency i know these people i don't think he lied i think he misconstrued or misinterpreted what was happening as he's looking at it as through the eyes of an that's right or right and i was just focusing on the first argument could and i think you are you're talking about the worst of the church primarily and i'm i'm looking at the evidence of the consent the only evidence of the consent was a discussion between mr warwick and agents will see that and i cannot say that he was lying i'm just saying that i believe that he was giving his version of what he believed was happening and i have no doubt that that the agent will tell you the truth from his perspective but i think we have to look at the objective picture of what was going on as to what even judge or me hope recognized in the record and then there's really two coercion arguments here want one is for the an initial consent and the case law authority is so clear in their arguments are so intertwined and fully briefed and fully discussed even though if knocked her down specifically they are so inherently intertwined that it is still proper appellate review and we've pointed out in the motion and i was not the attorney down below i'm not casting stones but wasn't the way that the motion was drafted i believe it was broad enough to also encompasses the first consent issues as well and so that's why i think  it doesn't show that we were in a fairly relaxed situation they were joking about the application of the second amendment and slingshots white why is it impossible for the judge or  needed this informed consent signed why did they do that if they had already had voluntary consent we already knew that there were six agents that were in the trailer that already found shonagh a terrorist let's admit it's a new search what is it i don't believe so i think it's a when they found shauna all these agents are still in there they have shawna she's not even in the trailer to work they're still in there searching for what why they're there in a fugitive order not a search warrant there's no protective suite going on so agent ac but runs a background check on mr warwick after they found the guns not before after the family gets and these facts and circumstances surrounding the whole ball turnus issue still exists yes they're all off to the side a joke he has a holster where he has a sling shot instead of a weapon he adamantly believed as you know from the transcript of the second amendment right to bear arms that he believed that the myth him fed to me he uses for his own medication and he truly some facts in this case and to completely ignore others those that are highlighted or illuminated or done so in the light most favorable to himself and instead of the light most favorable to the district words findings i think what is clear is that the defense strategy throughout this case was to bootstrap the initial contact between law enforcement and mr woodward week and to use that as ammunition to find the subsequent written consent involuntary the district court in this case devoted twenty seven of the forty two pages in the written order to a careful analysis of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant case law and found against mr warwick on his motion to suppress and the united states is asking this court to affirm i want to start with the first issue with respect to consent it sounds as if the opponent has conceded and force me down there to see more credible and those credibility determinations are given great deference by this court and therefore the united states is asking this court to affirm on that issue if we if we find no waiver  voluntariness issue you i mean i don't know where the where the property was but you have nine officers tactical gear guns pulled house surrounded you know almost to the point you know hands up come on out and mr war or wait you know his face i assume was told that there's a suspected they had encountered problems quote unquote when they had robbed each of these places where they believed in is good here is to be in other words folks went to jail they encountered other arson and gang members so when so it if i understand that issue was preserved on appeal which is the united states position that it was not there are there is plenty on the record for this court to determine that in fact that was a voluntary consent honor i am looking at document thirty four the original motion to suppress page for no one the heading on the original motion to suppress where they list that the heading is involuntary and i'll read the footnote for your honor it states that mr warwick denies that he ever signed a search form this matter will be taken up by the phone it's at a later date this pleading addresses the issue of involuntary consent in the event that the court finds at a later date that mr warwick's signed a consent to search for him the issue was near wrote from the very beginning of this briefing at no point in time in the motion to suppress and other opportunities like the reply the suppression hearing the conclusions  that were requested by the district court was this issue specifically raised in other words was there a sentence that said mr warwick his consent his verbal consent to enter the home wasn't voluntary  year by professor novins arbiter think is appropriate here on law day where there may be other potential lawyers in the gallery that law is a lawyer driven process in other words where this individual this appellant did not challenge the rule and united states v burke it controls in other words it was not raised a low it is waived what do you do what do you do with the district court specific finding as to voluntariness with respect to the search for biscuit us in the district court made a specific finding that that was voluntary so if it wasn't raised why the district court bring it up her self and even if it wasn't raised isn't it fair game because she did base her ruling on that so the district court's ruling was that the defendant does not argue that consent was coerced because defendant instead argues that it did not happen but then she says the court finds that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his residence both for ms good terrorists and to a later full search so that suggests that she was viewing it as a volunteer in this issue and so i mean i think i know what your position on that is that's about it so there's a little contradiction but the other thing i'm curious about is she finds this voluntariness element but she never makes a specific finding as to whether any guns were pointed at him or not she says it's in dispute but then she basically doesn't make that finding doesn't she have to make the finding about the guns because don't officers arrived in approach the residence they did they did not have firearms drawn or pointed paragraph eighteen first to howard's testimony that he was the agent and the only agent that was back at the vehicles that had firearm trained anywhere at the residence or trained at all that day so when mr warwick exits the poor also made a specific finding a paragraph eighteen that  agent howard immediately lowered his firearm and thus it was business as usual after that so any overt show of force rapidly dissipated and i think what's instructive is the case that i submitted in my supplemental forty united states piece and the comparative law analysis in different circuits specifically united states taylor from the seventh circuit which indicates that was a case where law enforcement arrived and mass to break up a counterfeiting operation at a used car dealership and the court found that those tactics when you believe that life and limb is an issue are not inherently co and so also in that case law enforcement any and disha no virtual force mediately was dissipated firearms were lowered and so i think it is a completely and totally in analogous case the situation but it felony conviction what is she what if she would have found that they have pointed their guns at him but then went on to find that it was a voluntary consent well i think that the  with somebody whose will have been recently overboard in addition i think also they want to itself is instructive here law enforcement officers into the hotel room their firearms were drawn and pointed at three individuals inside the hotel room they were commanded to put their hands up there was physical contact there they patted these individuals down and then firearms were go lowered and the district court in that case found credible the officers testimony that the circumstances afterwards calm similar to this case and therefore it was not found to be a course of environment when the law enforcement officer subsequently asked if asked for consent from the individual to search the room so i think there is not only the findings of fact of the district court but also in abundance of tenth circuit law that illustrates that not only is that not the dispositive factor but it is not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration here there's no deception there's an computer so your answer is even if they were pointing their guns out m once they put on down everything calm down it was voluntary that is correct it was business as usual they secured the scene they did interviews they explained to mr quickly want to address the fact that this court should do the heavy lifting and part of the account and i just find that this this issue is way it was raised by it by doing enough first part of that opinion it talks about this type of an issue with respect to a condition or a conditional plea which is what the circumstance was in this case but what it says is that the in that case the consent to enter to look for the lady was not voluntary but then later on the written consent to go in and get the guns was a ball and parity you still win or lose the first holding make you lose all together personal experience with age in a city well i think that the record at the suppression hearing was he detailed in abundance his experience he was an adjective best professor a unanimous well it's ok i'm going to give you that he's experienced but what's the record in the was evidence in the record as to what the mr world said at the time but more importantly this distinction that somehow this word it's going to would just doesn't hold because these agents are schooled there joy army will also in her opinion page fifteen paragraph fifty eight reiterates the fact that the court finds that the spite the sizable number of officers present and their prominent display of guns including rifles defend it remains calm confident pleasant sensitive from the time the exit is home until the officers left it's just internally inconsistent it just doesn't it just doesn't make sense and then i farms in the manner in which they were affected the so called voluntary consent or the informed consent and all the cases we've cited clearly show you cannot give