it please the court and counsel elizabeth pollock on behalf of the appellant tallon right and we are here to review the district court's finding that mr wright's ex girlfriend had actual authority to authorize i can do that and there was no finding made by the district court on apparent authority but under either actual or apparent authority there that this case should be reversed in terms of the actual authority argument the district court focused solely on the past relationship of ms hamilton and mr wright and what was determined at the evidence hearing hearing was that she may have had joint access or control over this computer while their romantic relationship was ongoing in may of two thousand and fifteen but that at the time that the consent was given that she had disclaimed that authority when she packed her things and was preparing to move out of their joint residence mr right that that computer belongs to him evidence is there of a disclaimer over the already for the stuff that he left me when when investigator mick not specifically asked her whose those computers were she said those aren't mine i know nothing about them and so that she specifically told the investigator i don't own those computers those don't belong to me i'm not taking them right it's not a question of ownership that's that's not the key to what it can actual or apparent authority she also said we all use them the kids use them i use them she said w joint access of the checking the sky word which is the urbana middle school grade system this is the search was on august first two thousand and fifteen and so she was using the computer the evidence shows there are no other dates that were ever mentioned as to when she was using that computer and so it can be inferred that it was at the end of the school year and potentially in the beginning of the summer but she did say and this is a distinction that is not present in pretty much any of the other case law that has  actual authority over computer is that all the other cases the people who were giving the consent to search were in active participatory relationships and had active presently had control over the computer that is not true and that she  presently have control of the computer because she was he was not living there she was living there and although she was in the process of moving out she still had constructive control over everything that he left behind that this is really a case more of a parent authority rather than actual authority because of the ambiguity about the password protection issue and i think that's that the real pressure point in the case is whether the  ambiguity has they said about the whether the computer was password protected or whether just the internet access was password protected defaults this case into apparent authority rather than actual authority because the cases suggest that nothing in this circuit but the cases in other circuits suggest if you've got a password protected computer there can be no actual authority right and you know there the evidence was unclear on that count in the district court the friend's a preview of the computer was not presented into evidence so we were unable to verify or not whether or not there was password protection the defendant said there was the girlfriend's ex girlfriend said there was the investigator said he didn't find one during his frien based on what the officer knew at the time of the search and at the time of the search what we know for a fact is that there was no probable cause to obtain a warrant in this case the the only thing that the officer had been told prior to the search was that the ex girlfriend had observed something on the telephone not on the computer and that she was concerned about those images so there was no probable cause to search the computer he knew that he also was well aware at the time because there were multiple interviews during the day the first interview was only thirty minutes long and during the interview she said am moving out we have broken up i i'll take you to the apartment i still have access to the apartment but there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that she had access to the computer the computer was unplugged on the floor of the living room with the side off there was no keyboard there was no monitor there was no mouse and the investigator didn't ask her can you can you access this computer can you turn it wasn't on so it's not like the other cases where if you click the mouse and you unst to bring the computer back from a slee mode that the computer was on an open that were filed successful the computer was utterly inaccessible in its current state and at the time of the search after a very brief interview all the officer was aware of is that this wasn't her computer because she said that in the apartment prior to his stuff this is all my stuff i'm not accessing it i'm not using it i'm not she also said we used but she didn't say that until the second interview which was after the original search occurred so if we're talking about a parent authority we must focus on what the officer knew and he did not know that at that time all he knew was that she just claimed ownership of it he didn't ask her to turn on she couldn't access it and she was moving out of the apartment and had seen something on a telephone so there was not a parent authority now the actual authority in will focus later on that second interview because that it's a totality of all the circumstances argument but if we're focusing on a parent authority it is limited to what the officer was aware of at the time and that was not she did not demonstrate any ability to access that computer and in fact all of the evidence i understand what the course position is about the ownership interest property does not determine authority however it is inferrable from that that she did not have the ability to access and at that time you know she didn't flat out say i cannot turn this computer on but all of the evidence including the physical condition of the computer in addition to what the officer knew of her living situation goes to show that there was not actual or apparent authority in this case and so i would ask the court to reverse the decision of the district court find that there was no actual or apparent authority although the district court did not make a finding on whether or not any officers believe would have been reasonable what we know from the investigators own statements during during the hearing is that he equated access to an apartment with access to a computer so he said well she lived there she had a key i assumed it was ok and that is focused on entry into the residence but as i stated in the briefs entry into a residence does not necessarily mean you have the authority to consent to electronic media computers are much more private and i got my reluctant lesson about that ok well in that case then the investigators own stated belief at the evidence he what she said while he right in the apartment if she said that's a family computer she didn't she didn't say that until the second interview which was much longer the first interview all she said was that it was her apartment that she was moving out and the computer was his so there  coe when you're on his council may please the court your honors i'd like to respond to a few points that were made first was the statement that there was nothing in advance of the search that indicated that she before he ever asked to search the computer that she could use the computer and also like to respond to your honor's point that the ambiguity in the password protection suggests that we should merely be looking at its apparent authority rather than actual authority there's a distinct difference between a password withheld and a password given and forgotten or alternatively stated there's the question is one of the access to password not necessarily memory of one in this case there is evidence there certainly is ambiguity in the testimony with regard to the existence of a password although the i would also like to correct that it wasn't the forensic preview that's showed that there was no password it was in fact that the full forensic investigation later showed that there was no password on the registry couple that with some testimony password completely withheld because if you watch the video in minutes fifty three to fifty seven of the video where she's talking about passwords she says that if she needed a password she would simply call  right up and and get the password or that her kids memorized it i mean the fact is yes she did she didn't memorize the password but that doesn't indicate a lack of access and access as demonstrated by the fact that she used it when she needed and middle she had her own computer so she didn't use it that much but she still had access to it if the court has no further question according to the district court's account of the facts she did say that it was kind of a family computer that's a quote from the district court's opinion that any time she or her children wanted to use if they did they watch movies they played games and what's in used it to check the children's grades that that's all before the search the first search is that an incorrect statement of the record by the district court if that information come out in the post search interview so that's not it that no one there was not an incorrect statement of the  record there were obviously two interviews and aside from the two interviews there was also conversation while he's in the apartment correct right and this apparently from my reading of the district court opinion is occurring he's gathering this information and he's in the apartment yes your honor we would agree with so that is an accurate statement of the record that she did say it was a family computer before the search yes your honor that that is a reading of the record obviously there was no recording that's that's well known of the first interview but yes that's  computer beforehand and a good illustration of the fact that that's an accurate statement is in the us in the longer interview in the second video there were two videos that compiled that second interview in the second part i think it's about minutes said then or apologize it but she missed hamilton says as i told you we were i was looking for the movie airplane you know as i told you and since that was never mentioned anywhere previously in that specific interview the assumption is that she told her at some point previously just briefly the portion of the transcript mr phillips is referring to pages thirty five through thirty seven does not have a timing statement of when those statements were made and as a matter of fact during the government's direct examination of investigator mcnaught the two interviews were conflated in terms of what was said when and it was extremely unclear as to when those things were said that on cross examination i was able to elicit from him differences between the two interviews and that is where my state income came from on cross examination she did not claim hardly anything about the computer in that initial interview or while they were at the apartment that came in the longer two and a half hour interview that came later and so when the district court was making the findings on actual authority of course it was permitted to consider the entirety of the circumstances but if we're talking only about apparent authority it must strictly be concerned with what occurred prior and that is when she said to him nothing about you know the grades etc etc he thought that came in the video and then he confirmed later through search at the apartment includes statements by terms that it's a family computer that watch movies on the computer the play games on the computer etc that's in the judge's factual finding this is before the forensic search because the next thing in your opinion is the forensic search of the apartment but that and the next thing after that is the second interview true but she all she said was that multiple people use the computer there is no evidence of the timing of that use of the computer and what her later statement said and again where you know we're getting into the difference from actual apparent authority is that she did not have access to that computer that it showed for the months prior to the search because she simply it was unusable to her because the wireless was with mr right at all times and she made that clear so the fact that it was a family computer doesn't really go towards her ability to even access it and she mr ed s going to make not did not show that she could access it she didn't ask her to access it there was no password there is no keyboard there was no monitor so saying that at one point in the past we used it as a as multiple people use it is not sufficient basis or reasonably for the officer to know search lection peter thank you