it please the court and good morning my name is clinton calhoun i represent the power went cory stewart this appeal involves an arrest of corey stewart that occurred in two thousand and fifteen and i guess the initial issue is whether that arrest was based on probable cause or whether it was based on a hunch by the arresting agents  when they took mr stewart into custody and mr stewart's appeal also involves other consequences that he contends came into play when the agents chose to arrest  him in another were twenty chose to go to go that route rather than perhaps something less dramatic like that of detention and there's also a sign of some guidelines issue that stewart the government and the district court relied greatly on the the strength or lack there of an informant in the case is woman named measure of reliability that you can think of she had no history of being an informant or no history of reliability with with the she she told the agents that she had drugs and evidence of drug involvement in her apartment that turned out to be correct that was against rypien no interest on why why wouldn't that be suggest that she was reliable well she she did own up to some of the drugs and some of the money that the agents ultimately did make some statements ultimately when she finally got around to telling the truth to the agents which did not happens at the outset i don't mean she was already pretty pretty well established as a liar set of descriptors for a car why doesn't that suggest a high degree of corroboration well again you can certainly look at it although i should add that that was not the car that mr stewart was around and if probable cause has to be particularized to the person who was taken into custody it really doesn't have anything to do with mr stewart a code isn't it david williams was  and so as soon as that turned out to be amber then there are every reason to believe that mr stewart was involved d even though he wasn't in the whitehall you know your honor is she there  under the under the record is my reading of it they were not including indication which with each other so when they found when the amber team found out that they were dealing with amber that was not communicate banfield had mentioned as part of the conspiracy and therefore wouldn't it be logical for them to think that and would they have probable cause to believe that whoever was with amber was also part of the along somebody who knew nothing about it that that doesn't make sense doesn't mind i don't know and it probably would not but there it's it is still a requirement that amber were the part of the part of the group that that collected the money and all of a sudden there are three people there are two males and a female one of whom is amber at whose amber a charitable one they say they were not described by banfield as anything other than being african american males and i think she added to it that skip was from new york city so this was not tea and skip on previous occasions and yet the description that she gave it is almost laughably generalized i mean it just doesn't come anywhere close to what you would expect someone who has seen an individual seen both of them to come up with a she excused her inability by making of their an offensive remark that we noted noted in in the brief but i think that furthers her her her lack of reliability when when you think that here's a person who was in their presence before and yet couldn't that this report properly disposed of all of these issues its judgments and mr stewart's conviction and sentence should be affirmed that said i plan to use my time today to address the probable cause issue and must be at the court of any questions  on the nd two sets of issues turning to the probable cause analysis there doesn't seem to be a dispute at this stage regarding the factual record developed below the only question seems to be whether the fact as the district  found the support judge rice's finding the probable cause they do as the record shows agents had information reliable enough to be appropriate magistrate and at the outset you do have to establish probable cause the record bears out that there are two separate groups it's a single search team that is converging on both the eccles taking control of all the occupants of the coaster for safety reasons as the  simultaneously in one group begin calls or close together just raise a credit that the agent testimony that there there was nothing in between the two cars parked next to one another there in a small space to the extent that the the cuffing if you will of mr stewart which i take it is perhaps the the benchmark here for the moment of arrest your honor and interview the record suggest that those things happened simultaneously  the organization about which she was informing it was appropriate under the circumstances for instance to rely on the information that she was supplying them and they were the district or properly applied the seven circuits reasoning united states versus clarke which was also without i must say the court has any further questions on the probable cause analysis or any of the other issues raised the government would be prepared to rest on this brief may i just turn for a moment to the rule forty eight to question this run rule forty eight i take it your view is does not in any way constrain the ability of the government to arrest and then were pursuing an indictment to further investigate and the argument should ms batalha make about why probable cause the president all from his perspective not by a law that would counsel in favor of getting time to investigate what are the constraints here what what if any provisions of the law from your perspective would have limited  the government's range of motion or force them to speed up looks like there was three years between the arrest in the indictment you know what if any laws do apply to the decision to take it back slow yes right so i think that there could be circumstances under which a the arrest and release or perhaps a series of arrests and release and releases you might conceivably trigger rule forty eight dollars b i think and in this particular case there are a couple of issues with the the the set of delayed claim that generally what would begin to constrain the government's range of motion would be the convergence of detention and charging documents again i think that be the case to suggest there could be circumstances where without it hurting document there could be either prolonged detention or perhaps a series of short detentions there's also federalism issues that are implicated in gaming state and federal parallel cases for these purposes certainly no constraints on the agents or the government's discretion to release someone without charges promptly and the constitutional speedy trial command would require in effect a deliberate passage of time to allow favorable evidence to disappear fours and that delay may add to the probable cause because it confirms that the two cars were there together or if they instead of someone getting out and going into the apartment they sat there with their engines on in the car for two minutes