material and it was clearly it was an it was material as a matter of common sense as a matter of federal law and most clearly as a matter of florida law under florida law and in the wake of illinois versus date which kind of pornography and under those circumstances the magistrate could properly infer that this had been something that the detectives felt the credibility of the complainant was sufficient to justify  florida's th district court the court didn't even reach the fact that there had been an omission that this girlfriend had had actually come into a complaint to her boyfriend had been robbed that morning the fact that there was not enough sufficient evidence about her credibility was sufficient to the florida fifty ca not only to invalidate the warrant but to say that leon good faith could not apply because it is so clear that if the if a if an officer under just as easily have cut the other way because that additional fact would have actually been corroborative the allegation that the father was abusive even if you can argue on the other hand that it might provide a motive not to believe the acid well i disagree as a factual matter that that physical abuse and creating pictures of a sexual relationship with an underage girl are the same but more importantly the florida courts have been very clear on where and under florida law it absolutely would have undermined the daughter credibility and required for the corroboration which the detectives did not make any attempt to get in this case i think even even if you put aside the frank violation you've got a problem because what you have is the statement  arguably went to motive to to lie what standard would we use we would we use the same standard that the florida courts had employed and if the answer is no in this federal court what standard but it's the significance of the omission and the lack of corroborative evidence there's no question that in the federal courts a single statement from an eyewitness is enough even in the absence of any the witnesses statements and that is still a huge problem under even under illinois versus gates there needs to be some corroboration and he still omitted a fact which many many judges would find to be material to police keep to see if there had been any prior allegations that might have checked into her credibility and didn't even do that there was zero attempted corroboration here and that's the problem even without the clear materiality under florida law i want to i want to i really do want to hit the constructive amendment argument very very briefly with respect i'm sorry the other thing about credibility though before i move on that that i did not actually highlight in the reply brief that i should have all these other cases that the government was citing to say that that a single witness and even your honor pointed out the single witness might supply probable cause in those cases the detective himself had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant detective ramos never even spoke to the daughter he is going on listening to a recording when she was interviewed by detective rivera and he even admits he would have been more thorough the detective rivera if it had been his case and you know the conversation with detective edwards in new jersey that he never even read a sixteen as the federal aid of consent and so it doesn't make any sense that congress would impose a fifteen year mandatory minimum of taking a picture of anyone under eighteen engaged in sexual activity when there's going to be a my argument on count two hard to follow and so i just want to make sure that i have the opportunity to make to make sure it's clear to the court and that is that both the statute and the indictment with regard to the possession count tie the interstate nexus to the visual explicitly directed to look at a completely different charge other than the one provided by the statute and return to the grand jury  information the pornography found by the  refile sexual abuse charges against the teacher that were unsubstantiate increased the value of the information in do we have the details a statement showing that she was in the house and knew this information but again there's nothing to suggest that makes it credible the government said that that there was a factual statement in the in the knew that information and could have as educated the magistrate on it was detective ramos he was a certified examiner of computers and cell phones and he chose to keep that information to himself and allow the judge to probable cause based on  unstated mechanisms that weren't even true i haven't been doing a very good job of keeping my time i know the government did not hear my constructive among the arguments but i want to want to  sure there were no questions that the court did not misunderstand my arguments on those finally the r n r made no finding with respect to whether or not the omission was knowing involuntary because the court that th magistrate found that these factors weren't material and so although he did credit to take the reins of his testimony he made no specific findings were guarding whether they were no one knowingly involuntarily made defense counsel did submit a specific objection at the last page of his objectives we are now are to the finding that the omissions one either reckless in the voluntary and the district court didn't make a clear ruling on them either so we would ask either that the to the evidence be suppressed entirely or that the arguments this morning will be in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning courts