out three basics of issues on the validity of the search warrant but the case that stepping back from the details of this case to prevent a very important issue concerning the line between legal and illegal pornography the part that bothered me most about your side of the case is let's say no reason why the police should be able to tell looking at pictures of naked girls whether they're over eighteen or under eighteen nevertheless and either scribes what the state is and the communications that's providing context for the pictures let's say the pictures suppose the police minutes they look like girls sure look like they're under forty the difference in this case is that detective betterman does not set forth any indication that this screen name have ever been on this website before and that he had communicated with screen name that the person knew or had had clicked on detective betterments profile thought he was communicating with a fourteen year old there's nothing like that in there all the detective betterman says is that he was on it one time saw a list being created and was emailed six pictures doesn't claim that he ever communicated or started a new anything about the screening before that moment in time so what may have gone on judge hears that the ages are hard to determine but you know we're talking ten eleven twelve year old even if there's a two or three year margin of error here we're well below eighteen there's no problem here but in this case that margin  set out here's what they say about the different ones and he says i wouldn't you know on exhibit eight i would say the age which was a little bit higher than ten to twelve so he's disagreeing with  as well i think that again because it is whether you're looking at it from the four corners whether the four corners establish probable cause and the question there is their conclusion opinions if you're going to the hearing where that information is supplemented and brought and i think that the problem that you have here is that his opinions weren't objectively reasonable prohibited the possession of pornography where the subjects images appeared to depict a few into the picture minors and it said that's unconstitutional if their adult actors and they only appear to be under age that is protect speech in this case what the government is saying is that well even in light of ashcroft and free speech if somebody possesses images that appear to be a minor it may be legal but it will still subject them to a search they were pretty clear isn't that right there was one who was clothed so that was not a pornographic picture and that was exhibit seven i believe so everybody agreed that's a minor but she was clothed it was not a pornographic picture i don't know quite how you can tell what the ages of females once they're past and i read the testimony of the pediatrician and he basically said you can't tell on a lot of these girls he thought a indicated she was probably over eighteen they don't they can still be teenage girls apparently and it's legal and he thought another one the wedding ring indicated she was over eighteen he said on some i may have to ask you can tell a ten year old from somebody in their late teens but and closer than that it's hard now i was thinking pediatricians seen a lot of naked under eighteen girls read his testimony so i cannot be sold on anything that's not a fair presentation he said it's not unreasonable to think that wonder it's not unreasonable to think there were over that it's cracked and that with respect to all that dr sanders was i think highlighting in the this court has put forth to law enforcement for purposes of a probable cause standard is that they have to rely on the totality of the circumstances not only of the image being sent but i disagree with respect to what their training does allow them and does show them can you tell me what their training  even see anything in the record that maybe i missed it i believe both detective detriments specifically testified that he had viewed thousands of images of child pornography and interviewing thousands of images of child pornography he's also been shown images where the child is known and so he knew n i don't know how you tell a fourteen year old from an eighteen year old i don't he doesn't say i don't think that you can't exactly tell i think that there's always a built in margin of error but the issue here before this court is based if it was him white good and it was billings the context in which the image was sent this court does not require their to go after training better than a pediatricians that guessing a girl's age they're not necessarily guessing all the time we do have known series they have thousands of images of your own stor but they get to compare that based upon what they see every day and when you go unfortunately through these images every day you begin to get a sense for some of these images and i don't believe any detective can testify before this court that they would know the exact age of a minor dep well it included eight nine ten eleven twelve and in this series i don't think there's any dispute or any argument that the images here were under the age of ten but you do have a site that's representing itself not just a pre teen but giving a list of ages of eight nine say there isn't any dispute you mean you're conceding no member under ten and i'm stating that the testimony indicated it was under the age of ten or that there is any representation in the affidavit that they were under the age of terror pretend that it's not me under the age  person was file sharing with somebody who was representing themselves as a fourteen year old female is it reasonable under those circumstances that he's going to send images that he believes are light aged like minded with somebody he believes is a minor act time significant i don't know anything about his background training and experience beyond what he claims and he doesn't really give me any details about what it is that's why i'm so influenced by the pediatrician's background training experience that i kn all were consistent in agreeing and represented accurately to the issuing judge that they were under the age of eighteen that they were minors although they might have disagreed as to their specific age i do not think that is required and i also do not think that equates to a false statement or misrepresentation to the magistrate judge i believe the one detective accurately stated that ages are difficult to estimate not concerned about the police line had the franks interview struck me as at least not if he that corrected me i'm concerned once you again i don't believe that's necessary and as this court and better self are close it's not absolutely necessary it's ideal in certain circumstances but it's not necessary and here there were sufficient descriptions detailed description of each of those particular photographs again simply it more that he also attached his affidavit and his representation so that the issue of the court could consider both those not only his detailed description but also detect of bardwell's indication that it's difficult to estimate but appear to be minors and they were consistent and that testimony throughout the motion to suppress the comfortable with the system with the i think that there's more than i think that there's more than good faith reliance here again in the t but again i think that there is sufficient probable cause in the four corners without having to rely simply on good faith because you also have detectives bardwell revealing it with another colleague and both of them based upon their training believing consistently believing these images contain the miners they may not agree on the exact age i do not believe that that is necessary i do not believe that's required in simply establishing probable cause was there a fair probability and under all of the totality of circumstances there w it has the effect of lowering the standard of probable cause for search warrants a court may address particular facts again and decide that while probable cause is lacking the failure was not objective fully and reasonable and that good