investigation in this case began with a report that continued for about a month before they procured a state search and seizure warrant that permitted the search of defendants home and the seizure and in fact forensic search of his law top the agent than i actually contacted the u s attorney's office and was told do not search the laptop before obtaining a federal warrant because the federal w before you open it up you've got to get another warrant at least that was that that was the advice given to him that was the advice that it was an advisory recommendation to this court but not but certainly that is our office so here is my question  therefore he if we were only talking about the laptop of we wouldn't suppress it because it would be subject to the good faith exception he wants and he goes and gets a warrant to open open is the wrong word but to look discretion it's a don't know overview of especially the legal question as to whether the unreasonable delay doctrine applies to the twenty take up and if the doctrine does apply whether the deference to i think that's right the only findings here really that actually should influence the court or in the government's favor because the district court found that there was probable cause for the search and seizure of the home the search of the home and the seizure of the laptop forensic search of digital devices the reason that the government didn't rely on that is because our office policy is to say we would like a federal warrant that includes all of the restrictions that were stuff or thing the concurring opinion from c d that require suppression of the will and i think the district court did think in the fact that we did the wrong thing because otherwise the good faith exception should have applied and i would urge this court to look at this either from the perspective of the unreasonable delay doctrine should not have applied at all or that if it did it should have applied in a very different way so was it your argument that if you didn't get the slots assume you didn't get the nd word that you would have been able to look inside that's my and what we had said was that c d c concurrence urges the government to employ certain federal recommended or advisory standards we never took the position that those were requir know you're not equating federal was constitutional here now you know when when when the judge says federal standards you think he means your standards as opposed to the constitution standards i think he means the federal role standard set you know i'm what was the constitutional bounds and really it's his concurrences who are on ok so procedurally technically here is at the steps i mean i know the reason that there was a concurrence and not  exactly why our office tells agents that we want to comply with those nice practice and maybe it's my fault for taking you giving you the hypothetical because let's assume for a moment do you couldn't search  simply on the state ward it's going to delay the delay doctrine i think if it were applied at all would have to look at the consent cases as an analog because this other some other way and then and then the government is required or the states required to go in to get a warrant to keep it in effect and that makes sense because the th amendment protection is designed to ensure that the prolonged retention of starting from the proposition here there was no probable cause to seize the computer in the st place where in the consent case you know that the somebody has given up his possessory interest at that point if you are starting from the problem just for purposes of this question the good faith exception and now the question is can you wait forever let's assume that you are required to get a warrant to go inside of it can you wait forever is are some time limit how quickly must you act i think then if it's just the defendant's computer and so what reason was there for the delay just so i think the reason that there wasn't as much of a justification offered was because the government sincerely believed there was no need for expediency when the warrant permitted the retention of the laptop so it ordinarily we would say to an agent you have to get a warrant to search this laptop and mediately because there was no warrant in the st instance but because he had seized it with a warrant our office did not urge him to act expeditiously knowing that he had the right to retain would you have retained laptops through trial not searched it but retained yes and if the defendant want challenge not a written get his laptop back he has a remedy under rule forty one gene and what that remedy is is that he has to file a motion here he didn't even make a request for the laptop but he'd have to file a motion and then the district court w crew question yes it's a common practice for agent just in the city in the federal u s attorney's office to go by himself or herself to a magistrate without the warrant being prepared and reviewed by an assistant now in our office if it's a federal warrant we would review that awful day that before the agent went to the want of misconduct by anybody is least that you could in the record the judge found i would actually disagree with that you're not going to find misconduct that the judge found that there was no reasonable reliance on the state seizure warrant to hold the computer as the seeking to do a wholesale seizure the government must make a justification and an excellent i'm so i'm i'm agreeing with you that the magistrate was not presented with probable cause to justify seizure of the warrant my were missing each other they have a piece of paper from a magistrate judge that says you may seize the war computer why me why why isn't a federal agent entitle to rely on that piece of paper that the federal agent violated saying that the key safeguard for the seizure of a computer or in this case all computers all electronic device is a completely wholesale seizure this essential safeguard is that the interest involved the balancing of privacy what technology is available what is really  in getting the this is the nd warrant they had no they had no motive to delay at i thought worst they they were insensitive to the need to proceed more quickly what basis should we should we suppress it that evidence i mean it in in one of his opinions and herring versus the united states the chief justice wrote the trigger of the exclusionary rule police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully the tyrant and an sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price to be paid to  justice system why is the price to be paid by the justice system not controlling in this case where where you have a where you have a twenty day delay there is no there is no indication of any motive or benefit to the police and you could he he never asked he said look you're tying up my business i need this i need this i need this thing back or bring in action on the roof forty one j s which which could have been grown in other words i view this is a somewhat unusual case in the th amendment contacts with quote during and close quote this alleged violation the defendant had a remedy sure of waiting around and then saying exclude the evidence your honor i there are a few different aspects to your question that i'd like to st start with the rule forty one issue and the issue of mr job that the question of whether he should have been required to ask for his computer back the consent cases step below and and christie that the government relies on talked about the failure to request and i didn't back but only in the context of the warrant was from a magistrate so here you have a case where the police twice are complying or attempting to comply with the most critical provision of the of the warrant because of the th amendment which is to get a warrant which they do get and then you have this delay which is essentially meaningless no one is saying that he has to make a rule forty one g motion i'm simply suggesting that if this was such a terrible imposition on him to be without this computer to run to run his business then he could have asked for it and is that irrelevant i'm not saying that's and he should have he was under some legal requirement but you want us to basically let him go and i just want to know why your honor we accomplish your honor i think that any one of us would be very upset to be without a computer for you lose would you not if there were no explanation for it you know you find three day i said i took three days i don't remember but i took three days it took three days it would be a much harder case ok so what is there about what troubles me about this case on the far end department of justice to explain why there's a need for wholesale seizures that was not complied with no did issue a magistrate ever weigh those interests and surf therefore we're starting from a point where this warrant is markedly defective so to the extent the government breached or th don't need a warrant to search them and they go to work to search him so that what's the big deal in your case forget about you know what you may have on your on your computer what i may have on mine which is none of what you say everybody has  forget about that but what is the harm in this particular case of that this twenty day delay that essentially justifies letting your client walk out different person is the government disregarding and that's your argument then i get that but that's what that's where i get back to what the chief justice said it has to be sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price to be paid by the justice system now we had a case in the th circuit i think if the name is cha where they seize the guy's apartment they put him out on the street for about ten hours they were totally in the creek couldn't even get in to get his diabetes medicine and they the re was almost a deliberate this regard for for work were for his denial of his possessory interest in his apartment i find that case shocking and i would agree that even a ten hour delay which i believe was the way in the case i could be off by an hour was was terrible but i don't see that in this case so what's your sense and is it for some people ten hours with their personal computer would in effect you are in these these are very these are extremely essential devices we use them for all kinds of very important things they may affect our livelihoods but i also just would like to step back for a nd i don't believe that it's proper to require a week one medium one i don't care the quick question is in this case whether or not his depth of whether or not in a case in which there was probable cause to to open the computer and look at it because you don't contest whether him being deprived of that possessory interest for twenty days when the computer was st sees pursuant to a state warrant those set of facts should add up to applying the exclusionary rule and you say yes if they not knowing that there needs to be some reason or at least justification or but one of the one of the one of the things about i don't like to use good faith in this policy is on the morning the good faith is you could say what good will it is and let the and let them know that twenty days is not acceptable and they should be more sensitive to the need to proceed with haste and still not apply an exclusionary rule well i but i think the question of whether the proper to apply is the question of whether there would be a deterrent effect and i think that there would be your honor because because they have to act with diligence and here they simply did not act with dylan when there's no indication at the slightest indication that he was pre can't make that argument yes exactly counsel below said to the court during the hearing that if the court intends to rely upon this as one of the major bases to deny suppression counsel requested an opportunity to make a record on whether he in fact he did ask for  only case where there are yes yes or no yes because you're way over time i don't want to i don't want this to be the opportunity  i'm trying to help you out of there's a reason why these cases are infrequent this is an unusual situation the government is not usually circumvent hill and their permits to justify wholesale electronic seizures by going to state court and asking for blanket authority with no explanation of why that's needed or why a narrower seizure would be impermissible that doesn't usually happen so it's not usually necessary to obtain a nd warrant to do the search that is why we don't have more of these cases and fulton there was only a nine day delay and i would like to also just point out that there was no challenge to the seizure warrant in that case there was an unquestionably valid seizure in that case that was the main basis i think government says for upholding the delay we have an invalid seizure in this case an invalid seizure  jobs computer his possession of the interest was not diminished unlike many of the other cases which involve computer specific crimes where the person who's a criminal is being seized admitted that the device actually contained contraband mr joe did none of those future law enforcement action is that how you read what he's saying i think that's right but i think the problem was that judge who didn't appreciate whatsoever the existence of this state warrant as part of that analysis and the fulton case that the fence counsel points to the th circuit held that st the government won but nd of all that the very st factor that the court has to consider in adjudicating unreasonable delay when there is a warrant is the existence of that warrant and judge would just didn't do that and ultimately the only other point i would make is about the good faith exception which is that as the court has pointed out as your honour's have pointed out as a song j the case opposing counsel cited points out there has to be deliberate misconduct copiable misconduct and there was none what she said she argues there was that the district judge make any findings or not he did not he didn't find that the government had engaged in any misconduct he didn't find that there had been an invalid seizure he didn't find that there had been any violation of whatever requirements hale might have imposed he simply didn't apply the good faith exception at all and here because there was no deliberate or culpable misconduct no dilatory tactics by the the government as in as this court recognizes relevant johnson no motive nothing gained that is why this court should reverse the district court suppression order and at a minimum instruct judge wood to recalculate the analysis by taking the state warren into account you know i'm not sure that that's correct and if court and judge will found that it was supported by probable cause but certainly not all but over but over broad with her so to the war to the computer he found it i don't think he may have made a finding about whether was overbroad with respect to the computer i think he found that it didn't permit the search of the computer which is not what we relied on it for all right thank y