it please the court this case centers on the privacies of life as articulated by the supreme court in raleigh versus california without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion or evidence of contraband mr l sarka a united states citizen who was on his way out of the country on a religious pilgrimage still within the borders of the united states when he was detained handcuffed and refused legal representation that he requested which continued for hours until after he agreed to provide access to his electronic devices this discovered this occurred despite him having explained among other things is religious objections to private photographs of his family being viewed and again without any reason for suspicion other than that he was wearing religious attire we believe that the district court erred in four separate ways st it gave improper weight and a factual determination against adverse to the nonevent in considering the declaration by one of the individual  and also is consistent with this court's ruling in arnold and finally longstanding authority of this court supports holding that federal actors especially those acting outside the scope of their employment authority can be retrospective relief so can you start there at it and explaining why the government is was about that bar yes the commute and the judgment i does not apply here because these are claims that were brought all at the same time in front of the district court these are not subsequent claims were trying to get a nd bite at the apple and these are claims which are all presented to the district court again simultaneously in the original complaint ruled on by the district judge to do different results and the difference that the district judge came to a different outcome on the section one thousand nine hundred and eighty one plan and on these all of the claims that are on appeal here today before this court as compared to the federal claims act claims which were before the district court as well the s c c a claims went ahead in a district court and these claims are the ones that we appeal as the district court had dismissed these we believe improperly so there's no again there's no nd bite at the apple happening here and we're not trying to get double recovery there's no double recovery an issue here because the actions against the individual defendants are brought against them in their individual capacities and outside then later which has been recognized to include national origin so the claims under section one hundred and eighty one dollars against the dual defendants here are not based on the same they're played at the same time as the same whole broad you know day  of events that occurred but they're not based on for example the false imprisonment which was which was brought as and this is based on interfering with the contractual rights of mr else arco in specifically the contract an issue is the airplane ticket which he purchased which he was prevented from being able to use and not able to get a refund on due to the actions of the individual defendants and based on their representation is to go into the country that they would not be preventing him from being able to use this ticket blogs they don't use mechanical means to discover what's there and they ask them to one of the i don't see the violation what what to cite you don't need probable cause you don't need reasonable suspicion to do question but every person that goes through for an airline check anywhere they can look at you and they can think they want to talk to you because they're concerning at the border that you know you may or europe i believe there is a difference but i also believe that if we look at it again in contrast to arnold the difference here is that with with the with mr arnold there was a history of child pornography with the individual and the individual had a you know there was basically reason to believe that there was a need to search for there other than just an initial obvious search the case law does make a difference between for example turning on a phone and seeing the fact that it is a functioning  phone or checking to see a call was labeled as call histories in fact call history and doing a cursory search versus going through more what happened with mr el circo is that he was asked by the agent's questions about his e bay accounts questions about his amazon account and about his purchases on those as a set forth in our complaints so it was much more detailed and again without any correlation to contraband in the must be correlation to contraband which did not exist here and even under the border search exception that allows individuals at the border to search for contraband only they may not search in a manner and this is from kaner they may not search in a manner untethered to the search for contraband but that is exactly what happened here the searches were untethered to the search for contraband and were the arnel decision being published but in that case again the court looked at where it was appropriate to search paper because monetary instruments could have been contained in there and that would have been contraband also there's again this court has said that the possibility of child pornography being present when there is reason to believe there may be is also a valid reason to do a search of electronics that goes beyond simply making sure that it doesn't fact work turning it on making sure is what it says it is  try to leave the country on a flight to saudi arabia the st set of questions are individual capacity section nineteen anyone claims against the p h s officer the most straightforward way to resolve those claims getting with the individual capacity claims the f t c is judgment part flies when there's a judge it just became an f c c a case and the two sets of claims involved the same subject matter here the district court entered language i now know one did a forensic search why should the court not go do a deeper doc into that why why is that sufficient is it not easy for officer to say to her knowledge it didn't happen but officer stevenson very well could have done some sort of intent to go on religious pilgrimage at some unspecified time in his life is not sufficiently concrete what mr alterman is expungement of data that you just doesn't end up being him on future he has gone already three times he has family there he was on his way there when this happened and yet it would appear that unless he gave us and i you know every every time every day up to his travel plans here that this man has a fishing connection much to return to this country where he has family where he would obviously travel on a regular basis to visit them he's we was traveling on that day why does it have to be so specific as to you have to update the court every year that searches of cell phones we're not talking about he's repeatedly been subject to cell phone searches at the border such that it suggests that in the future and edition also from a search is likely to occur  the point of a series of invitations to come back to the united states and she was obligated to deny everyone because she would not have been allowed in the country it was obvious that she had ongoing invitations that she wanted  thank you anna i do want to address this court's questions as well as the comments by judge cordona as well st of all as to the rest retrospective relief sought again i do a green as has been present presented in briefs that the very minimal bare bones declaration by defendant doyle which is one page you know in total not counting the signature block does not speak to the entirety of the time that his phone was that his phones their two phones and that his phones were out of his possession it does not speak to the entirety of the individuals or agencies who examined them as your client responses s had to despite having made clear the religious objections that he had you know reveal the information that was there but in addition to that he says that to the best of his knowledge and that is what that's what he's got to go on at this point to the best of his knowledge and upon his own information believe there were other individuals who took his phones who walked away with them there out of his view and he believes in his good faith belief and has made a good faith allegation that his phones one or both of them could have been searched at that time defendant or else because only to one phone  number and there were two cell phones which were taken and she's simply says i did this i did this i did that i did not record i did not connect it to any extremely quick man in to my knowledge to her own personal knowledge only neither h s i b p has any copies of the contents of his phones that's not enough that's that's a take our word for it with a partial loop closed and that is not enough at the motion to dismiss stage again where we have to take the allegations in favor of the non movement to the extent that there is the dispute and he does clearly plead that he believes that this was done outside of his presence that information was taken down he states that he believes that that was done by one or more individuals he can't know for sure who did that specific paragraph site right now but he does say that he was without most of the phones one of which was locked and that's the one on which this defendant doyle was focused but i do want to speak again to the as well i have some time left