targeted inspection of digital content than physical places and the need for that rule is particularly striking in this case because what happened is that agents left off with a more targeted inspection they'd you were you are socially you're not attacking the work itself or you're attacking the execution of the work that's exactly right what was the reason that you wouldn't attack the work itself  is fairly clear that that suffices even though it's unusual breath but what the court did say it's the bill is that as the object of the search becomes more general the procedure by which the search is conducted becomes more important so it's that there is an interplay and that's what should the government have done well there's no single answer that question but what they in the most general sense should have done is they most should have started in the most obvious places to try to find the evidence they were looking for there might be a range of such crisis the most obvious one would be to use the same technology they've been using to pinpoint the what was called an aries software software for this peer to peer network if it didn't that would be some indication it wasn't the device they were looking for were as you argue to your own body great that it was where they should have st an answer as to what what the proper a good you should offer him how they should have conducted the search in order to be with me corruptors of the search warrant you never indicated how they should live at the search wri private and things like personal papers and wiretapping communications and these cherished domains of privacy the fourth amendment contemplates that searches have to proceed in a manner that's it somewhere else then that art is what they did you know what are you every day searches of houses as long as what they've done is within the parameters of the search even though the sure does something more obvious some other place in the house  of your question i absolutely am taking the position that digital searches are different from physical locations i don't dispute your honor's point that they can start anywhere within the parameters of a warrant when searching a house computers are different are many places they might have started what is evident were not among those places are the ones where they did they started right in the internet history which is some of the most private information on the machine and which they had no which was the least know our challenges to the method of execution and the nature of that challenge is premised on the a requirement under the fourth amendment that searches a digital contents even more focused than searches for other physical i don't so i don't know what you do you know like the way they did it in other words you can get the greeting read bad violated the fourth member because they had the computer generated search of the entire no events i'm not objecting to the fact that they ran an overall computer scan so that's ok yes that's ok in fact what i'm saying they should have done again as as not necessarily their only option but the most obvious would have been using that same utility which it's undisputed  this capability they should have immediately searched does this device have the videos we're looking for on it but it that's not the end of the matter i'm not saying things and they're i'm saying that's where they start because if you do that and you find that the computer doesn't have those videos on there then you might start to have some questions about whether you've got the right computer there were ten computers seized from three different residence in this residence so it stood to reason they were quite confident not every one of these devices was going to be within the scope of their problem call shot it's to protect beat extremely private digital content on laptops and smartphones of innocent people but this rule is essential because otherwise if they can just died in any and work wherever conceivably they could find evidence they're going to rummage unnecessarily without any need for material that's extremely private  most obvious way is that contrary to the ability or quite often the mislabeling or attempt to hide on their computer where something might be that the government is looking for to say that they have to do the most obvious place first and skip the rest it still sounds to me like what you're really saying is this was an overbroad search but only in terms of the execution yes you're  not saying there's one obvious place and that's why i'm not proposing a protocol of the kind that's the bill quite rightly said it would be impossible for courts to adopt it bentz so it was like this language from the tenth circuit the most obvious places it's not going from your perspective from the more general to the more specific writer in this case deciding hey we'd like to look at internet history that would be interesting oppositional as you understated it you start in the most obvious you can spread out and i not telling agents where they have to straight as long as you're within the confines of the search warrant as long as they're using a minimisation technique of looking in the most obvious places and only looking in less likely ones as it becomes that one of the very first devices the detectives looked at was a dr put it in forty five hundred images of child pornography pop up like that and it's our position that once they discover an image of child pornography they're off to the races my role ends there it's obvious deck and to some degree i regarded as a bad thing the precept i was urging but applying it against me thank you  search he did was looking in places where what he was entitle to look for could be found where he was in time to look for included still images of child pornography and video images of child pornography those can be found in video parameters or protocols broad which the execution of a search warrant should be carried out so that you don't sweep in a whole lot of private information with regard to something that is very clear to me this is like our store said you know it when you see it there's a whole lot of other stuff that's on the computer that would be go through so it is the that's trust our subjective intense we're going to only look for what we're supposed to look for you know i don't this is i believe they were looking for child pornography but that's not enough because of the think they didn't look at every file so they did they did make an effort to minimize i you don't have to look at every file on a computer to come across very private information so you know counsel for the government is he spoke again in a down there looking at photos or looking at videos they're also looking at is internet history you don't have to look at that history very long to see oh this user was researching treatment for depression i want more i want this person is looking at abortion providers on figure out which providers it was you know this person is in some kind of financial distress they're looking for stop now i don't figure out what rate loans they want you know you scratch the surface like that and you see a lot of private information is entirely unnecessary in this case they had videos that had been obtained over they had no sign that anyone had used the computer in that household to engage in any on walpole activity over the web by web browsing and yet they decided that would be some of what they looked at  so the idea that it's enough for an agent to look away once he's come across innocent content is not not respect for all of these degree of privacy in visual content and the minimisation requirement that should apply there  you have to protect innocent people's digital content so i think it affect what you're saying is that there was probable cause to search this particular computer they went too far there aren't any particular guidelines in this circuit because it's such an amorphous area tennis circuit did something very general terms of trying to start on the way to look at guidelines it's tough to  this the case to do it this is not most certainly the case of iran or because in rummaging that internet history we know they never found anything they never found a single item of evidentiary value there that was entirely unnecessary all they did was study a lot of going in for pornography like this case and you came across financial documents that with a lot of digging you might be able to come up with an additional claim a complaint against the fed that but you haven't had a word to do search the computer and you've gone beyond the pictures of pornography to this looks kind of funny care figured out maybe i did bring a forensic person in to take a look at it that would be a good case for you that th