two laptop computers i want to address that and spend most of my time on that issue first because that would move consideration of the global issue if the court decided mr rasmussen favor and also because i think that that search issue involves an emerging in the office that day i believe the record indicates that all he did was turn on the computer and observe the initial information which appeared on the face of the screen not conduct a search of the individual file to search the briefcase includes the searching of its contents this a long line of jurisprudence dealing with containers within containers within containers and when i refer to there being an emerging area why i refer to the distinction which is being drawn between the retrieval of digital information and the opening of containers and of course the classic line of cases is in vehicles and close containers within vehicles in this case the government relied principally on florida  which is a closed container within a vehicle case the one case decided by this court the carry case and a number of other cases draw a clear distinction between containers within vehicles or states within houses or any interior with interior kind of case such as the briefcase scenario you're describing and the case where there are more of just sweet privacy issues created by a user of a computer who has that there was a forum for the violation here but i guess i'm stuck on the question of whether it was harmless well i think then the courts got to look at the entirety of the trial record because this is a case in which the principal issue was the state of mind and the trial defense out on the street he didn't testify concerning his own knowledge or absence of knowledge the entire weight of my argument that trial had to do with knowledge with respect to the four or four b issue generally it's important to remember that judging it needed the evidence for intense plan or modus operandi and i think that was clearly error there was no evidence that there was hundred four b computers with the intent to sell them in a similar scheme or plan for the one for which he was convicted i think those are just inked elements and the sole purpose for which the evidence was admitted and for which there was a cautionary instructions to the jury was that they could be considered for modus operandi intent or plan and i think the government in its brief essentially concedes that that was an improper purpose for which  admitted the government argues that there is another purpose for which it might have been admitted but which was not in it and that is knowledge to return to the harmless error issue in any case in which state of mind is  trial and for all for be evidence is admitted on the issue of knowledge and the standard of course is that of there is a reasonable possibility that a different verdict worth would have occurred i think reversal must be required knowledge then there's a reasonable possibility that there would have been a different verdict we can't separate that your is consideration  mean please the court my name is chris tesco i represent the united states i would like to begin where the defendant began which is with the fourth amendment issue because i think that's an issue where the record hasn't been fully presented to the court the issue the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect and the supreme court has held that the scope of the search is generally defined by its expressed object and here is the expressed object of the search west to allow detect the counts and to review computer data and defendant's computer at his office at the time the consent was given the defendant was arrested for possessing still on computer equipment he had a computer within and the question was after defendant spoke to you about seeing if you stationed what he was going to do at the office was to show you the digitized information on his computer documenting the e mail they still answer yes that's how the idea that you would all go to his office came up answer yes so what's clear from the record was that the whole purpose of going through the defendant's office january fourth was to look at computer data on his computer and testified that the defendant accessed the start menu on the count compaq computer so that if you look at that data and here i'd like to cite the court trial testimony from our testimony of the townsend from november thirteenth this computer do you use the phrase the compaq answer yes i do question describe how you know that if you do answer he did it for me while i was at his business so the records clear computer information together while at his office finally in closing argument defense counsel argued that the defendant and then know the computers were stolen because he invited the police to come to his office to look at the computers for the express purpose and here i'm going to read from the defense closing argument on november twenty seventh that's case fifty nine of the trial transcript and this is defense counsel how do we know that mr ross we had no idea that these were was child pornography and one this court held that there was nothing wrong with that because it was in plain view i think as any application here what it means that is that once they were looking at the computers e same tradition does not apply i think that there is this evolving case of on the search for computers and the courts have applied traditional fourth amendment principles the principle that usually applies to close containers  was limited to a search for drug related evidence and the officer exceeded the scope of that consent and that's why i think it's important to look at the record here and realize that the defense can sense the search what specifically directed at the contents of the computers first there must be sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the defendant committed the other acts second the other acts are introduced to prove a materialist view in the case there are the other acts are not true mountain time and fourth if it needed to prove inten that the defendant knew that laptop computers were stolen and the district court held an evidentiary hearing on that issue outside of the presence of the jury and found that there was sufficient evidence the evidence was clear that the laptop tears were still on the whole then you popped up with the name corrina on it and asking for a password there is no way to access the computer without seeing that log on menu and pushing ok or pressing ok to make that log on menu disappear second with that's true because the defendant's knowledge that the stations were stolen goes to all ten counts and other and by that i mean that the defendant was charged with misrepresenting the origin of the new stations and committing fraud and doing so so court at least in principle accepted that proof of prior suspicious sales was quote strong evidence that the defendant knew that the item items that issue were stolen the same argument applies here the evidence that the defendant's prior suspicious possession of the laptop computers that the laptop computer provides in the ship that they were still in the defendant willfully turned a blind eye and claimed to be duped with respect to laptop computers it's strong evidence that the defendant knew that these stations intent and knowledge in this case is closely related and the knowledge that the knowledge piece of it was a predicate fact for the government to prove intent and then at the close of the close of evidence and while instructing the jury that the district court did give the evidence that's not the type of evidence that will create a strong prejudice and i jury he wasn't charged with stealing the computer if you just tried with possessing them and to the extent that it shows anything that shows that he knows what's gone computer equipment is which is exactly what the jury was allowed to consider the the first name the seller and in no last name the seller the defendant's landlord told the defendant that sounds fishy and i want to touch it with a fifty foot foot pole so from the get go the defendant was on notice that there was something quote unquote fishy about the transaction it only gets worse from there the defendant went to purchase the stations in a dark alley and passed street which is a dark near all residential street in the mission district at nine pm at night he didn't pay cash he didn't receive any paid less than a in this record the facts which are in the record of the mr ross he told detective townsend that he had purchased one at a flea market and one at a secondhand retail computer sales let me speak to the four