beginning with united states versus yeah right good morning in there please support michael to not appearing on behalf of iraq are you going to address the standing issue st and then i'll  reasonable thing to do and the government puts great weight in saying that he expressly disavowed ownership of the phone but that's not quite true there's a couple declarations in there but one attached to the reply for the motion to suppress from the officer was artie said that he did not claim ownership which is vastly different than do we do we even have to decide this issue given the supreme court's decision and rd which says that this form of standing is not jurisdictional and you can assume search so if you would address that i would appreciate the inventory search evolved as our exception to the requirement for warrant because  for purposes of community care taking safe keeping on preventing false claims against police those kinds of and then a straight of things so what the courts have been concerned about is that police don't use an inventory search as a pretext for conducting a search for evidence and the way they guard against that is that they make sure that the police they should have gotten him into research if they filled out a farm they got the right requisite signatures from i guess the tow truck driver and you know followed the basic procedures for doing an inventory when towing a car  and so it seems to me that really what your argument boils down to is that not all the items were listed but that you know of a case file seems to be that that alone doesn't involved in anything you can seize their cell phone and then figure out what to do with the later on everyone has a cell phone and that's just not a lie still needs some reason to suspect that there's a fair probability that this is going to yield evidence of a crime or be the fruits of a crime itself unless it fits within the inventory exception which does not require probable cause i think it still does for the seizure your honor the mentor exception just allows them to enjoy the contents you still need some reason to seize every thing there could be all kinds of things in one's vehicle that you inventory but not sees done pursuant to a search warrant based upon a probable cause finding by not one but two different magistrate judges so starting with the propriety of the phones seizure so to point out that in riley the supreme court said that the defendants they are sensibly conceded that the officers in that case could have see could seize and secure cell phones that are discovered during otherwise lawful searches in order to prevent the destruction destruction of evidence on those phones now mr gary would be wise to make the same concession and so what this district  court must really address is were the officers lawfully in the car and once they were lawfully in the car under riley in the concession concession at the supreme court in sensible they could seize the phones to secure them to prevent this from destruction of evidence while they sought an obtain a warrant and there are two exceptions that the government has argued a pies here that would permit the officers entry into the car and then permit them to seize the phone and the st is the image tori search exception which the district court did find that this was a quote legitimate inventory search now it is true that inventory search must not be a general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence and it is also true that in many cases compliance with standard procedures including by quote creating a written him and torrie will ensure that the intrusion into the automobile during the inventory search is limited just to the scope necessary to serve the caretaking functions that the inventory search exception is designed to serve but it doesn't follow from a failure to specifically follow to the t all of the written documentation requirements than him into a search suddenly was done for an unlawful investigat purpose and was merely for the purpose of rummaging to discover incriminating evidence and i think that this court's cases in a rose cohen johnson on that score are instructive the core question that this court has to answer is does the failure to create it and list of all of the personal property that was taken from the car it is substantially completed they did substantially comply with the local policies for towing and impounding cars but they did not in the remarks portion of that phone identify all the the officers here really had no meaningful alternative to impounding the car and inventorying its contents it was wrecked in a ditch on the side of the road if you look at the pictures of the car in the e r it peters one hundred and forty seven and one hundred and forty nine its windows are down it's accessible to any passer by the driver was placed under arrest both the driver and the passenger disclaimed having been in control of the car and the registered owner which was the washington locates and the creation of a hertz rental car company obviously had no representative present to take the car away under those circumstances i'm not sure what else the officers were supposed to have done besides tow the car from the ditch on the side of the public roadway and then once they have no alternative but to tow the car of course they also is that the seizure of the phone was on lawful presumably that they should have given it back to him and your response to that   at the station which serves the community caretaking purposes because it makes sure that those items are skeptical of the property was then kept at the station yes yes your honor and in and even then there was a warrant to search the contents of the phone exactly yes your honor and and frankly the idea that the phone could have been returned to defend under the circumstances when he was placed under arrest so whether it was taken from the car and placed into central booking or given back to the defendant and then taking back from him when he got back to the police station house when he was booked there either way the phone would have ended up back in police possession so clearly the image or a search exception of pis the district court didn't air in that regard even if even if you accepted the defendant argument that the failure to document on the c h p one hundred form all of the items probable cause existed to search the car and once probable cause to search the car you can seize items in it that may contain evidence including for example a cell phone the district court here found that there was no question that officers had the right to search the car for additional evidence in mr kerry's opening brief he did not challenge now finding by the district court he's challenged it for the st time in his reply brief and the way that he's challenge it is not to challenge whether there was probable cause to search the car but instead to assert that the automobile exception wouldn't have applied to this car at all now if he's wrong on that score for three reasons  st he argues that the government would have had to prove that this particular automobile was mobile first day on a real exception is generally applicable to any car that is designed for travel on public roadways court held in michigan versus thomas which is it for fifty eight us to fifty nine that the justification doesn't vanish just because the car is rendered a mobile and in fact the automobile exception applies even if police officers impound a car when it's obviously in the bill and obviously inaccessible to an  defendant has been placed under arrest and so that i idea that we would have to prove in an individual case that a car was mobile or accessible to a defendant just doesn't hold water his argument also ignores the dual justification for the automobile exception by selectively quoting from focusing solely on the mobility here mobility of the automobiles the exception which was the original justification for the exception but since then the supreme court has recognized an alternative basis for the exception which is the reduced expectation of privacy and the government would submit that the fact that the defendant led officers on high speed chasing crashes car doesn't somehow restore his expectation of privacy as compared to another individual travelling on the roadway and he's also just wrong that on the idea that there was no risk that any material  frankly that the district court i didn't really make a factual finding at least didn't find standing in this case the district court's holding as to standing was based on a misapprehension of the law which was a misapprehension of which was insisting on as i as it it sounded like he was saying well he abandoned the farm but you never abandon the phone's contents and so you always need a war and sort of that that's how i understand it  propriety of the access to the car and then the fact that the warrants did actually set forth sufficient probable cause to particularly under the extremely deferential standard that applies to review of probable cause determination by magistrates that the w set forth sufficient probable cause and that probable cause was was robust a the defendant led the officers on a high speed chase he fled on both and in the affidavit a search warrant it does also judge when it did when the state magistrate found that there was probable cause to support a search of the phone and that statement was never challenged in the district court despite the fact that mr gary did challenge whether there was probable cause supporting the search warrant affidavit he never requested an avid injury hearing and so given that that' undisputed fact in the record and that mr kerry had ample incentive an opportunity to dispute it and this court should accept that that denial as part of the totality of circumstances that informs the probable cause determination and could also accept that