thank you and may it please the court again my name is tracy stop and i'm here on behalf of mr nash and again this case presents and other search warrant issue and this is why i keep getting the two of them mixed up and generally i don't like to spend a lot of time on the facts in an oral argument but i think in this case the facts are critical and surprisingly enough for a search warrant affidavit there disputed that so it looked to me as though context in this case was kind of strong and i'd like you to dress that match break don't wind that he had sex with a ten year old boy in a fourteen year old boy and still he would swap photos and that's a lot of context for looking for photos of them under eighteen individuals and it had some sexual aspect  my second concern that i'd like to do it dressed as look like didn't even need probable cause to be looking for possession of child pornography they had probable cause to be looking for evidence of rape because screening it could have been somebody else in the same residence or whatever but nevertheless this is something the problem even at the record i couldn't quite figure out then he at one point in time he had used a credit card and that credit card information with mr nash's name was in that profile was saved in that profile but you see his profile now hard to get his profile he whoever register just go to whether there's reasonable doubt rather than probable cause well because the ramos case and most of the cases that cite that say that just because we think that he may have committed a crime doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that evidence that crime can be found in his home and again the case in this case there is no nexus there's nothing that would tie this one single track to his home there's no direct evidence and there's no indirect evidence there's no there's not a e mails bragging about having sex with underage individual right people that have computers are likely to have in their homes nowadays and e mail kind of piles up there and not just i mean he's accessing it from his connecting his home and granger to this chat or the evidence of a crime there's nothing and when you say nothing you're not including the credit card number thinking yeah you could put in my name and credit card because probably i guess you know my name you don't know my credit card no and i know that and that's why i'm saying assuming we can tie this to mr nash's is unreliable that information is there is still nothing that says that he committed this crime at that residence that there's evidence of this crime at that residence that there's anything connecting this granger residents to this crime that was alleged or or confessed to there's nothing if they were able to trace an ip address they often do straight back to a computer and say this chat came from this computer and this residence bam we wouldn't be here but they never did that and the the registration information was a post office box so the police didn't even go far enough to confirm that he lived there six months prior for all we know he moved we know nothing and the fact that the police were able to verify that ron nash used that post office box and lived in granger means nothing it's a completely innocuous fact car and now lives of the granger street address but again we don't know whether he access to the internet from that residence whether there's a computer in that residence whether there's evidence of a crime in that residence and we don't know any of that he could be accessing it from work or school or anywhere he could be accessing it from a prior residence we don't know we don't know so what it boils down to is they think he did the crime and we search everything he owns  several cases from other circuits that do talk about that they say you know when information is being sent to a post office box or when it's just as likely that it could be his work or his school or someplace else we don't make that leap to search his residen to die on that story i'm going to state even if we look at it as a confession it's very similar to somebody who confesses to or that we know has sold drugs if we don't know anything if there's nothing to tie that person to his home we still don't get to search his home and in this case there's no indirect evidence either there's no opinion testimony and there's no testimony that says this person fits a profile or a certain proclivity that we evidence we know that drug dealers of this certain type do and you know put their drugs and money in their home with their storage unit or wherever they do and that's what they used to go in in this case there's nothing there's nothing and i mean you think it  really be more persuasive if there was that usual police boilerplate about i mean usually happens that's wherever and whenever so even if you put it all in there you've got to tie it to this person and of course not i don't think so but i would have a hard time standing up here making in this case that is just not there and and the government is basically asking this court to indirectly overbold whether that's what would have to happen because there's no direct evidence and there's no indirect evidence tying this crime to actors and there's nothing specific address as well as the telephone number that was later cooperated through additional subpoenas but identified me stuck you associated to mr nasty nash at that exact same address with a date of birth and the same telephone number and that was later cooperated by the akamai detectives to put that in the affidavit so the united states does disagree significantly with the facts as they were so she added not only to the defendant but specifically time him to the computer related activity at that particular residence address at the time they wish to execute the warrant it's simply not required nor is it reasonable to suggest that officers need community computer related cases such as this to see the defendant on a computer inside his home to know that it reasonable and there's a fair probability that exists that evidence will exist inside their home to make sure of this particular chat not only in folks concern over child rape which was part of the basis of the probable cause but also the exchange of what he proportionate to be images taken of one of his victims that directly and it also discusses victims in close proximity to the defendant and neighbor a child he coaches it is absolutely not reasonable are not unreasonable for there to be evidence associated at his residence based upon his own statements and the cooperation of that address phone number credit card to the defendant  it's logical to think that there would be some incriminating evidence at the residence i think it's logical because here you have an individual who's online he's chatting with like minded individuals he's utilizing a computer to do that he's not only discussing in graphic detail the the rape of these children but also the exchange of images this is an ip address that you do have to register some form of home address with yahoo in order to keep that account this is the address he consistently registered this is the address that he was still at he was also referencing children of close proximity to him a neighbor a child he coaches it is not only reasonable to think and it's not required under the law that we have an exact location only that it's of these crimes because again we're spanning not only child rape but computer related crimes and that we can't recover something out of a computer in his home and it's absolutely reasonable to believe that that computers are going to be maintained in their home that they're not going to carry it around to different locations to to believe that he's going to have those types of communications when he's discussing illegal activity within the privacy of his home instead of a public location and it's certainly even even if these chats occurred in a cafe it's not unreasonable to hire a dope dealer they could make m deals on the computer and internet cafes but that doesn't mean that there's not star evidence of that crime associated with his residence and the law does not require there to be exact premises to socially as long as it was reasonable for the officers to seek evidence  the premises to which they sought here i don't see what the are other alternatives would have been where else would they have searched for evidence except for the home of this individual he was having these chats on line but i think could you help with something else i know your time is short could you talk about how this thing which if you think it should be distinguished united states vs were prior had ordered from a catalog that there was no evidence of any other interest and that the reliance for probable cause rested a great deal of time expertise of collector language submitted by the experience so it was more likely they keep in maintaining these items that that when people are interested in these items that they often keep them up for a period of years here we are outside that type of situation here we're talking about an individual within six months who he himself was bragging about the molestation of two young boys and trading those images online you don't need to rely upon the expertise of an iffy and in presenting an argument that it's reasonable to conclude that this into an individual maintain that interest or have some evidence of this crime still in his home and it just separate and apart from i think it certainly can be considered as a statement against interest that holds much more inherent reliability here we have an individual who doesn't know he's being watched he doesn't know that conversation is going to be read by law enforcement and in out with their own statements carries inherent ink in this particular case when you have an individual who's talking about multiple occasions multiple victims and a desire in a solicitation to trade images i don't believe that there should be the luxury of questioning when we're talking about a standard of probable cause i think that we have to assume that when somebody thinks they're in a safe place it's talking to a like minded individual that they're going to be more free to discuss their criminal acts and certainly did not ever believe that this chat would be read by law enforcement is we know that in some contexts involving sexual conduct conduct there's a lot of false breaking that goes on your honor break here when you're looking at the context to which this message was given and the age of the  think here you have to look at the context of it to determine its reliability in this particular circumstance if you're talking about an individual who's breaking in asking another individual about their abuse of his children and list of those ages as ten and fourteen years of age multiple occasions brutal raping of these children and asking for an exchange of pictures that is a very different context and i think you have high school students breaking about conquests or you know talking about locker room talk this is a completely different context and it bears much more inherent reliability even if there's a breaking in there even if the court wants to assume there are some some provided no going into it the inherent reliability of this type of chat certainly provides sufficient probable cause and i think obligates absolutely obligates law enforcement to look into it as quickly as they can and to determine if there's more evidence that can be derived based upon the defendant's context and that was the case here get back to the house it still doesn't get us back to his house there's just nothing there that gets us back to the house and you have to look at ramos that says the confession of a crime doesn't give you enough to search a home and you have to look at weber in wherever he ordered this stuff and they said that's still not enough and he ordered it much sooner than the six months we're talking about in this case so we can't get by ramos we can't get by wherever in this case in the search warrant w years prior and then he went out in order to stand there were going to be delivered to his home address and in this court said you know that's not enough for making inferences upon in france is and that's exactly what the court would have to do in this case they would have to make