significant difference between entering a store and seizing pottery barn for example is also a store that's on for the public and therefore a fleece officer could go in and look around without having probable cause or even reasonable suspicion but if that same peace officer went inside pottery barn drew is gone forced people to the floor and handcuffed them and when we let them leave and that constitutes a seizure and you better have probable cause this is true pending the issuance of a search warrant but only if there's probable cause and the reason for this rule is clear this will make sense the police need probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant it therefore follows that if they want to go into a location secure it while they get that search warrant they have to have probable cause or to put it another way if the police don't have probable cause when they go into sort of clear the location they don't have probable cause the warrant and they don't have a basis for securi location the first place so probable cause is the appropriate standard and here the police do not have probable cause what they had was they had tranch order mr callaghan's indictive ex girlfriend with a criminal history mile long and a ten year history of harassing the strip and his girlfriend later his wife all of which which was well documented with a long yes police department she provided other histories give information that's very true your honor and that's why i think the more significant fact is her criminal history as it pertains to her harassment of mr callahan his wife for ten years at the time the search warrant  officers went in to raid the store she had not only been convicted of battery against mr callahan and had a restraining order the preventing her from going near mr callahan she in that case had failed to show up for a court appearance was an outstanding warrant for her arrest in that very case so the fact that the the police detectives claim ignorance of all these facts all we had no idea this was going on we just thought she was a royal informant i don't think they can do that because they're in a catch twenty two situation if they want to rely on the fact that oh she's providing reliable informant information in the past then i think they bring all the baggage with them and they have to know about this relationship with mr callahan which makes it highly unlikely that mr camp to that the search warrant affidavit that was prepared within an hour or so after the raid by miss detective smart did not mention that one of the things that chant shorty said would be there will be lookouts and it did not mention that he saw a lookout which is very suspicious if you figure that he is trying to step probable cause and everything that the government points to now the presence of lookouts up front would probably the most significant fact they can point to so that's a significant fact the other significant fact is that effect it would have or any weight it would have on the probable cause issue is detective smart as he went to the location he was sitting out front watching this when he saw disposal of suppose a lookout he did not meet leave that location or stop the surveillance from the time he got there until the time the raid occurred there's never any mention of what happened to the supposed lookouts he never said one the police came in they tried to warn the people inside he never said they ran away he never said he ran inside and those are the people so if you go back to chant shorty and realize that however you look at whether she was reliable or whether she was she looked at just like an anonymous source because of the baggage that comes with her tip has value only to the extent that you keep the police could corroborate significant details and i emphasize the word significant because none of the details the government lives on in the police relies on were significant and and therefore your honor i think that there was no probable cause for the seizure which is clearly the standard for under the fourth amendment for this type of of the district court in this case judgment correctly just correctly made it the defendant's three guns which were found during the course of a search for desmond correctly decided that that search warrant take two forms the first is that the get the officers were not properly in the store and i think there's two ways to analyze what happened in the store of course the government's not arguing that it needed to know whether it's in order to seize the store as the fourth in the around of course not of course not and of course so i think it was a misunderstanding the government's argument government's not saying that they got the officers can go into a store with guns drawn without any facts but here's the two ways to help or approach or cost well actually  to present two different ways of thinking about this first thinking of the entry in the store and seizing the store as a terry stop in this in essence the officers seized and frisk the store and for that you only need probable cause now terry has not been limited to persons it's also been extended to cars and traffic stops and also two locations or circuit recently did this both both in oh joan and romain the first circuit in within the last year has noted that terry does extend to locations and that he's the only probable cause the other way to sort of storm stormtrooper approach your honor the district court may not sufficient of this and i think she was correct where we haven't allegations from what the relationship between the informant and the defendant the focus under us versus them alone which is the case that says which is the second way to think about this which is of course the officers went in and gave me froze the location and then saying that they're in that store with the defendant with it who has a criminal it has a criminal history a drug trafficking conviction that is no the officers his brother was also recently arrested in drug trafficking incident an where there was a lot of drugs without assuming correctly so that guns would be present this court has and many other courts that regularly noted the troubling nexus between drugs and guns if you're going to go in and you're not going to go in you to a drug trafficking situation the reasonable inference is that there's guns there and in fact there were three guns and so it was reasonable for the avs to go in the way they did in judgment i think correctly found now in addition to  to me the tactics i can understand sending him five six eight whatever officers but what's wrong with uniformed officers who are armed why do you have to go in like you're raiding dissidents home in baghdad well in this case your honor they had not just evidence that there was a that there was drugs in the place but there were lookouts out from i think this is important and it wasn't just a bald allegation i think this is a misstatement of the fact it wasn't just about allegation that there were lookouts detectives more specifically states that it's one sixty two in the record that these individuals were alert and scanning the area they were standing out from alert and scanning the area now what this shows your honor is that they've got muscle and they're keeping an eye out for cops coming in there and ready and the inn for a reason the inference to be drawn is if police were to enter their prepare if somebody and not just police but possibly other people seeking to rip the drug and so the reason when friends if they got lookouts they're ready for anything they're ready for people who might come in arms to take the drugs and so i think it's a reasonable inference for these officers to draw that the state this course was to go in to a situation where  cars came and left and he also identified the high end cars a stolen car parked right out front it was identified as stolen another troubling fact and so they had all these facts that the lookout drawn here is that at the time detective smart arrived the lookouts were outside and the drugs were inside by the time they were able to assemble a team and go when the drugs were gone and the lookouts were gone because no drugs were found but evidence white powder residue one pla affidavits told the officers that this was an extremely reliable informant she provided reliable information passed not that moment those officers are dealing in detective smarts there's in fact the other side given the informative before they all pa a and he's telling me that this woman is giving him tips before and they don't hand out under those circumstances the officers had no reason to doubt ms jordan and this mystery reliability mystery since its reliability and at that point so and again the focus is one what the officer knew in the waiting and i don't think there's any reason to impute to officers executing a search warrant or freezing in place the contents of the entire criminal history database there's just nothing  relationship with the defendant and by the way this court in bishop and strickler in both those cases noted that it would be naive magistrate to think that somebody would come out come in off the street with altruistic reasons and provide information somebody is always got an axe to grind when they're informing on somebody and so the fact that she had an axe to grind with the defendant and i'm not sugar coating her history it's not great and if the officers that knew that knowing that maybe this would have been different  look pretty foolish than she did she did she did to the extent that drugs were not found but there was that there was a lot of smoke when they went in three guns coking powder so one car a person with a warrant with a wanted war in the place and the defense admission that he's a convicted felon and has three guns that he just has because i knew i wasn't supposed to have so you want to elaborate on how the t in reasonable concern for their safety and with reasonable suspicion that check them out try the king was and was underway to secure its very individual in this case a location and make sure it's safe for the officers to continue their investigation into some questioning that persecutes said there's absolutely no basis for limiting terry to a person because people officers encounter locations just as officers encounter people and terry was intended to pr the officers asked the defendant do you have any guns and he said yes and that made its way into the war and that is what provided probable cause to search the place according to the district court so while you may be right that  who for guns right the search was for guns and drugs and the judge judge what were there was no probably cause were for drugs actually there was and but quite well judgment now in hell that there was not the government's position is that there was but all costs so i think that the issue here is clearly flaws are probable cause and with regard to that i just want to mention a couple of things that the government mentioned and its argument first of all the fact the cars are coming and going again it's a video store how is that significant cargo coming going that's what happens at a video store the second thing the government in the stolen car but it keeps ignoring it and yet it acknowledges that the issue is what the police officers know when they entered the initially after the store and it's undisputed if the court looks at pages to ten to eleven the record that officer smart admitted they didn't know the car was stolen until after the seizure so that's not an issue and finally i just want to point out that even now the government's not admitting that they were led down the garden path by chance shorty there were there was nothing found inside that indicated that there was a drug dealer going on the only evidence of drug use found and there was evidence of personal use of drugs and if there had been a drug deal going on detective smart would have to the most incompetent police officer to have that gone under his nose and not even noticed it happening and as i said he was there the whole time so s it provided him with a bogus tip and they shouldn't on that because there was no nothing to corroborate her story certainly nothing to establish probable cause thank you thank you for going to thank both counsel for their arguments we'll proceed to the next case on the calendar which is corven versus lockheed martin and counselor