conviction first in regards to the juvenile delinquency act the agent in this case violated every single one of the requirements of the act even though the requirements are unambiguous and i believe there's only four requirement station and spoke to the juvenile at about ten fifty five and that was the first time that you ever asked for a parent notification and i also like to note that in the supplemental excerpts of record in the government's own motions they indicate that about that time the juvenile did inform the agent that he was living with his uncles in los angeles he provided examples full name and address in los angeles but they made no effort to contact  clearly what the government is trying to tell us is that they did not use his statement in the judicial proceeding and therefore that no harm no foul how do you respond to that  miranda rights in an involuntary not knowing in an intelligent manner and that's exactly what happened here the juvenile in this case was detained for six hours knowingly and intelligently waited right to speak to an attorney when he also tell us what the prejudiced was i mean it tangibly what is your argument that the prejudice wise and also did the district court address prejudice as to the prejudice because they determined that since the statements didn't come in at trial there was no prejudice but i did i did find well i did find some place in the record where the district court was using the words prejudiced talking about that yeah i believe  i think that page two forty of the excerpts of record to district court says i quote obviously the prejudice would stand principally from the use of any such confession but that is absent here since there is no evidence being received of his confession and there is not any other prejudice or constitutional violation arising separate from the other conduct attributed to the border patrol agents that is the consulate issue and it's not my in mirandizing doesn't this amount to so doesn't didn't the court address prejudiced but i mean what was the court talking about that what the court found was that there was no prejudice and they relied on prior precedent where it held that failure to provide parent notification was insufficient the court didn't make an actual finding as to whether or not the involuntary statements made by this juvenile danced on the other evidence that was actually received by the well  he can't ok but yes you have what three people that they detained that test they testify don't they testify as to what's going on in the vehicle although they can't identify the juvenile but then you've got an agent that says something  more time we have a case here in which congress is specifically to worsen the juvenile justice act specific things that officers priest would have to do violate all they want think been doing for twenty years they can keep on doing it it's an insult it's an insult to congress and that's also the federal government police officers can violate x specific acts telling them what they have to do asking the court to do is to look at what the purpose of the g t a is the purpose of the g a t a is to provide prophylactic protections for the juvenile and in that sentence the idea is to provide that you've been ill with a notice of its rights to forthwith and that's what the agents did in this particular case you have to keep in mind that the fact that they lay out the juvenile was apprehended is indicated by counsel approximately four four fifty or five thirty in the morning or five o'clock in the morning at that point as indicated by  interviewing the other witnesses that were in the vehicle and in processing those individuals they finally reached the juvenile at approximately six thirty in the morning and which point they became aware of his claim juvenile status however that claimed juvenile status was in direct conflict with the juveniles part reprehension in which he had indicated that he was actually over the age of eighteen nevertheless agent and reed guest picked up the phone and attempted to contact the the parents or the consulate so as a result that the agency couldn't actually comply with the provisions of the notice provisions of the g t a because at that point they couldn't get in contact with the consulate and they didn't know any p be in contradiction with the decisions of this court actually one of the problems that are a found is that there was a parental notification problem and that also was one to wait until the helicopter and that in failing to wait for the consulate to attempt to locate the parents in r and that was found to be a violation well given his rights and then don't question him until you can get a hold of the consular of the parents that's that's what's kind of stance well in the alternative what the agents did is they actually placed the juvenile separated from all the other individuals and did not interv e it wasn't a situation where he was you know handcuffed or you know to a bench he wasn't threatened with jail none of the things that occurred in r a occurred in this case the juvenile which was placed separately from the from the  aliens placed separately from any of the adult and of offenders that were also apprehended at the checkpoint and then agent and recants contacted senior patrol agents so that they could respond to this  prosecution because of that point they made a determination that based on this juvenile prior history of killing checkpoints that he was going to be prosecuted so then the eighteen patrol agents responded to the area leaving from the san diego area possibly fifty miles away to where the checkpoint was located they arrived at the checkpoint and prior to their arrival another senior patrol agent agent told him again attempted to contact the mexican ten fifteen and that's indicated in the excerpts of record at eight in the statement of facts attached to the information so at that point there was a second attempt to contact the mexican consulate and provide notice regarding voluntarily waive those rights and in fact he was actually given the rights twice he was given rights once at ten fifty five and again at twelve forty prior to making his statements regarding the smuggling of the illegal aliens so in this instance and in the end based on the the due process argument if you look is there a violation the district court found that there was a violation and the the the juvenile actually alleges six separate violations the first five which are in the notice of the as the special agent in the case regarding him receiving a call to respond of the checkpoint in order to investigate and prosecute so in the end suits used to investigate not a decision was really time that this juvenile has run the checkpoint he's actually run the checkpoint on other occasions so in the end you look to you know what when you've been with a decision made the decision was made long before any and you look at what was and in fact the evidence that was in the information was the same evidence that was presented to the district court judge with the decision for judges in able able to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile in fact committed the offense as for which was charged the information  prosecute well during its drastically the the argument had been presented to the district court regarding whether this additional information being contained within the information would have in fact created an issue for argument was made that based on the information that was filed by the government and that's at the bottom was actually two forty and the district court again it went through and said that that did not provide sufficient basis to find that there was a prejudice in this particular case so the argument was made but it was rejected all right thank you thank you thank you for your argument to parent information until about ten thirty or ten fifty five in the morning six hours later if they would have asked for parent contact at six am when they found out that he was a juvenile then they would have been able to