go into those for that reason but the the the basis of our our objection to the search warrant being granted is actually that the search warrant was based on the investigating officer suspicion as opposed to evidence that that it crime had actually been committed or that there would be screen name that was later tied to an ip address that was later tied to the house that was later typed the defendant of course we don't know whether that was the defendant himself that was exchanging messages with the individual in florida but that's not relevant to the discussion here so essentially detective mcmillon the saying well there's evidence that the  produce child pornography of the his own children and exchange that or distribute that to mr abney it doesn't it doesn't mesh with somebody who has actually traded the child pornography with mr abt desire expresses a future intent to do something as opposed to an indication that something has occurred what about the disney reference that there is a disney film or s kid watching a disney feel film there is a reference to a specific picture that might have been traded am i wrong about that well i believe that that was there was an exchange where he had said something to the effect  f the girl order i don't remember if it was a girl or boy that was watching the disney was hot that's a yeah something like that and i don't know whether that was and a lot of what the detective conveyed to the core is just an assumption that these things have taken place but there wasn't any evidence that the child pornography had valid they in fact didn't find any child pornography that could be linked to mr adie it's possible that the child in our became from other sources it's possible that it came from mr act but there's there's no evidence that in fact that was part of the exchanges about sexually abusing children while the girlfriend's gone i'm paraphrasing it how does that play into this well i that was definitely before the search that's correct i think that i think that even if that was true  i i'm not entirely i thought i thought that your client said it and kick exchanges with the man that he described sexually abusing the children in his girlfriend's absence i have a paraphrase of it here is that correct or incorrect you can tell me well i'm saying assuming that that's correct yeah that and it still doesn't change the fact that the search warrant doesn't establish a nexus between the home exhibit in the motion to dismiss that's the court order that the executable that the officer that allows officers to actually search the property and i think that one of the interesting things about th a which is what the property is that is to be searched but and that in paragraph two it makes reference to attachment b which are the things to be  during the search for and our position is that if the search warrant was to allow the search of the things to be  you indicated yet there were these statements regarding watching disney videos stating that one was hot that clearly should show that both the appellant and abney in florida had both viewed this same video or photo and there was were directly after that a request for additional child pornography to be sent and that statement was from abney correct the kid and the fact that there weren't that there wasn't any child pornography attached to those catalogs at the time that the search adding these devices in florida had occurred does not negate the probable sexually assault his own children and mate with the children if his girlfriend remained at work all night there was the concern of production and so the request for the  be production and sexual going on and that to judge best and your comment regarding next this comment what if my girlfriend works all night she made a point with the kids know on whether these communications were occurring on a desktop computer a laptop or a cell phone but even that it was the cell phone council argues that it was briefed that cell phones are mobile but cell phones are not independently mobile a cell phone it would be generally with the person who owns the cell phone and this warrant was executed at six o'clock in the morning it is therefore this one was not noted in it as a thing to be searched it was very clear in the war and application that computers were going to be searched if there are no other questions on the search warrant issued the last thing i would like to point out is that regarding the defendant at the time date meant that issue that was raised i believe that  meant clearly stated appellant you are not under arrest you do not have to answer questions and you are free to leave unless you want to drink water from the house unless you want to go into the house you can't do that you i don't know how that how that enhanced it would not apply but i guess i'm not sure what you mean by standing because it was applied to him will his specific to the government's argument that the search warrant was essentially to be read with the application to the gro case i cited the supreme court case from two thousand and the application must be read together and that they would in fact the read together but ultimately it's the warrant that is the order and not the application and i described the situation brief where a magistrate looking at the application could say no i think that the place to be searched that you're seeking to search could that's too broad i would narrow that to a certain area or i would narrow the things to be and so i know that as a practical matter that search warrant order is essentially typed up and brought the language in the search warrant limits the place to be searched than it limits the place to be searched and if you have to look to the application to understand  limitations of the search warrant that and that's going beyond the actual search warrant and that's going to be very difficult for law enforcement to follow so