activity and whether they'll be evidence to find in the residence searched the warrant in this case it describes a fair amount of illegal conduct and no illegal conduct whatsoever and so one assessing that a warrant before needs to go through all the court needs to view the totality of the evidence we need to look at the specific information that's in that warrant in order to determine when we put it all back together whether we get a probable cause the pieces of evidence that are in that warrant or simply insufficient we know that in  there is we know it's some kind of complaints that he's seeking to trade photographs and that goes to the national database there's no investigation of that multiple clicks on any individual link so there are two week there are two emails that are sent the st female does reference the name that is one of the well and there's one click on that link and there's nothing child pornography understand to mean preteen hardcore it's a clue and yet there are a number of clicks as  h c however i would suggest that in in the in the way that those links are to be demonstrated there's nothing about the link itself that makes those letters  affidavit that those letters would be known to any other particular person and he doesn't describe any basis how that would be you know so he doesn't describe it in the affidavit that those letters would be letters are used in a way which does not apparently appeal directly to lower enforcement isn't it reasonable to suppose that the the use of the of the letters sending the e mails we have a canadian law enforcement agent that is e mailing out the link with these letters and better but we don't have mr larson doing a search for these letters or anything like that  these letters stood for that's argument strikes me is nonsensical how can they prove it until they execute the search warrant and they get the information reasonable to assume a child pornography collector avoid but the only evidence theoretically that he is such a collector is these letters themselves but also you have these you have these albums which i understood they're not a turk arrives as pornographic but you have these albums which are photographs of person male and female children five years or younger in the this really is a classic totality of the circumstances case i mean that you can piece by piece try to dismiss the significance of course that you're taught and i never said that you can yes of course are you really that you that all the evidence needs to be put together what i would suggest is that these albums themselves in particular the albums that have pictures of children of legitimate images of a dull pornography even if they would include those children aren't enough to demonstrate  intention in clicking on some other link to possess child pornography that those two circumstances together aren't enough to raise that bar to the level of a reasonable  talking about one discrete bit of background evidence this is this is this is part of a very a series of background that's correct that i do agree that we need to view all the evidence together and the contention is when we look at the possession on these three legitimate legal albums combined with simply clicking on the and there's nothing further the circumstances approach that the law requires when the nature of the post the forum in which the defendant chose to place that post and his response to the investigators e mails are considered as they must be as a changes to the trial judge and just rely on everything else but i think it's important to know in the ciphers burnett line of cases that are just as a practice of attaching photographs even there it's recognize that a detailed description can stand in place for the actual photographs and we have that here the magistrate had a detailed description of the images contained in the might sway album that would enable the magistrate to determine what inferences could reasonably be drawn from it and i think this leads perhaps a little bit into the and it's frank's challenge which wasn't discussed here today but it is obviously raised in the brief and i do it's telling that neither in his brief nor here today has the i the defendant identify an alternative allegedly more accurate description of this i know and moreover even if the phrase life like infant torso were substituted for whatever an allegedly more accurate description might  called the photographs of children engaged in everyday activities that was contained within i love mackenzie's albums but of course that isn't all that was there alongside images of actual children were images in w adult male penis was penetrating a life like infant or so or if you will and object a small size object that was staged to look like a small child or to invent by having it dressed in cinderella underwear and surrounded by children's affidavit here specifically notes that image source is a forum in which it is known that individuals often post sexually suggestive images of children running to the inference that the defendant chose this particular forum with the understanding and it's had that others on it would share his interest in children and engage in a training of child pornography now it's against this backdrop of the nature of the post and the nature of the forum that we have to and the defendant's arguments that he's emails weren't sufficiently explicit is untenable given the overall context i would also suggest that it is dangerous insofar as it appears to rely on the assumption that the sexually explicit nature of the e mails must be made explicit which would suggest that only the most incautious of individuals could be found to have reason we be thought to believe the lead to be thought to be engaging in an attempt to ey in fact do contain it it can be implicit certainly all but there's got to be something from which the magistrate in turn can determine that a reasonable ordinary person who is in receipt of these images would know it would be intending to possess sexually explicit material involving young children what do you make of it i didn't remember the name when i asked the earlier question but what do you make of the significance of the of these cinderella  that there is any child involved in sexual activity whatsoever and i think that's where that album would have to go in terms of on the the image source website i would simply point out that the affiant suggests that they're sexually explicit material on that website but acknowledges that any illegal material is immediately taken down by the host of that website and there's no indication of the frequency with which people illegally post images on that website so we don't have any idea from reading this affidavit whether a fraction of a percentage of posters on this website opposed illegal