search his room and all of those searches were fruitful they uncovered no evidence of drugs or drug care for now do we know how many times that happened you know the only word we have is in the notes and in the declaration officer shooter has numerous we don't know well i think that would be an unreasonable way to read that that that that they don't like the first of all it's well established that a person's refusal to give consent cannot be used to solve a prob because and i think justice is reasonable if and to the extent the court wants to consider that as a fact as well to consider that that the other searches should have been presented to the magistrate judge to put that final incident in cont and you gave consent repeatedly and these are for people who are nothing and then they came to your house on christmas day and said you want to look again this is a serious reason it seems to me that that just doesn't matter  all that you complain about there still isn't enough rest to justify her earlier argue that if you take out all the misleading statement and fill in because there is no history from those anonymous sources whether they provide reliable sources and they prove reliable source of information the past so that's not much there you have the confirmation of pretty innocuous details like was the fact that he hadn't suffered a conviction about five years or more and then you're left with what the government points to is as to claim that there's probable cause for the search  why and before i get it i would like also point out because you were denied in evidence your hearing on this issue we were denied the opportunity to fully fleshed out exactly what the officers who made that supposedly observation saw and what the approach a man outside of the hotel saw something asked between them another officer then stopped the woman the woman said i bought a dime bag of marijuana here it is from somebody i don't know his name so she  missions that were perfect and we know that there are other investigations going on for some reason that we never learned about the place of maintain almost very vigilant surveillance on that location for reasons associated with mr walk ins so we know there's other people doing drugs out of there we don't know who they are because they haven't told us we don't know what they look like we don't know if they are look similar to mr walker and given the fact that this panhandle took place at night that that is the most significant fact the government can point to in their effort to establish probable cause but i maintain that it is not sufficient to meet was not probable cause particularly once the omissions and the facts from the statements in the rest mr walker is entitle to a limited remain and for the district court to determine whether or not now knowing the advisory nature of the guidelines it would have imposed a lower center so i will leave it to the court seven misstatements of those three were never presented to the district court so the government believes at this point this court should not reveal because they were never a basis for requests for a frank hearing of the district body may be raised at this point they were never raised for the district court for a fresh hearing that means for statements or mission that the defendant complains about i think the first one of the defendant claims the most serious that's the one alleging that the affiant was not telling the truth when he did not fully disclose the fact numerous times and he had conducted searches in his room number five there's no reason it could be because there was other and investigation occurring there we don't know that for certain from the record but we do know is that was the crux of the reason why they think that i could consent  thank you i think it's significant that even at this time the government refuses to acknowledge how important the omission of a prior search is really as i can imagine something more relevant to a judge deciding whether there's probable cause to search a location for drugs and knowing that the very same location had been searched on numerous occasions and no drugs were ever found who governs the government's effort to say well it's different because there was this anonymous complaint made there's two problems with that one it's still the thinks he is not putting that into context by disclosing the prior searches but two presumably those prior searches happened because there were prior content  as the as the government a knowledge response of judges like this question you don't know exactly why those fires are just happened but we do know that seven months prior there was an anonymous complaint about drug dealing and so nothing really changed between that period and