of these witnesses would have been unreasonably burdensome, impractical, and costly given the considerable distance they would have been required to travel. See, e.g., Bell, 785 F.2d at 644 (noting that “considerable expense” to secure the personal appearance of Kansas officers at a revocation hearing in Arkansas weighed in favor of finding good cause not to require appearance, but declining to reach the issue). The facts presented here are distinguishable from those presented in United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784, 786 (8th Cir. 2013), where the government offered no explanation for the arresting officer’s unavailability, even though the defendant’s revocation hearing was held in the same state in which the absent officer’s duty station was located. See Bell, 785 F.2d at 644-45 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the government demonstrated that
holding that a judges constitutional challenges to commissions admonition would have been considered by the arkansas supreme court had such matters been on the record holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search holding that there was no show of authority when two officers repeatedly asked an individual where is your girls house but where the two officers were still in their car neither officer displayed his weapon there was no physical touching and no indication as to the language or tone of the officers voice that might have signaled a clear show of authority holding that the government failed to show that presenting live testimony of officers at revocation hearing in arkansas would have caused significant difficulty when those officers were also located in arkansas holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable