reversed because the f b i searched the appellant's computers without a valid warrant and could not rely in good faith on the validity of the warrant that they obtained the district court erred in finding good fa magistrate judge with a warrant application that deliberately obscured an essential fact that went to the heart of the warrants filleted that fact being the territorial reach of the net search what's the what's the evidence just so i'm clear that so what's the evidence of like deliberate intentional wrongdoing so i will answer that but i also first will say that that the court doesn't have to find deliberate misrepresentation simply r falls opening representation that this was going to be a search of property in the eastern district of virginia the f b i agents who completed the application could not have helped but know that that was not true there has been in some other judicial opinions about this search some emphasis placed on the fact that late in the affidavit the f b i said that this would search computers wherever located however that disclosure in addition to being again very buried very deep in the affidavit also did not an ambiguous leak contradict the false opening representation that this was a within district search who did not ever come out and say we're actually going to search computers throughout the country and in fact throughout the world and that contrasts starkly with the detailed descriptions that the warrant affidavit gave as to just in simple words here's my understanding and i probably way off my understanding is that the f b i got the consent  warrant is i understand that with regard to bat server assuming that that was done with consent right ok i'll let my hand down my next understanding is that there is an intermediary computer or whatever it is voluntarily are are participating in being part of the infrastructure of the i'm going to try to make it simple just one intermediary so that the user sends a message to the intermediary  well i'll tell you what well let's assume that the intermediary is part of the server ok ok and what your lead controls the intermediary and when the when the user sends a message to the intermediary it runs the risk that it might be they don't know who does occur well then what expectation does the user have that this intermediary which comes out of nowhere could be from a plan the telephone number being disclosed right ok so as not to put if if is like a pen register because then you have the intermediary who's receiving that the address or phone number and that is understood but but just the fall is gone you said in the course of that colloquy that information it's factually dense and difficult to understand does that not militate against you were deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness with respect to the technology i mean i guess i'm just having a hard time putting this squarely in the bad faith box as opposed to the like to describe it as best i could with the information i had box sure  so the facts are i think we've all gone through this in trying to understand what happened here they are but as you see that that that sort of that line of questioning can take up a whole lot of time just by itself the magistrate had to process a lot of novel information in a short time the only clear information that the i provided about than its territorial reach was false and put the onus on the magistrate to figure out that the nit would search outside the district because it never directly said this this is going to search computers throughout the country an application for a warrant isn't supposed to be like a sales pitch or a television ad where favorable information is emphasized unfavorable disclosures appear in small print if it is then then the person who makes the what is different to just to address those other circuit opinions because there is the element elephant in the room they other circuits have not evaluated the good faith question in light of the fact that the f believe your honor because they are you have this clear opening represent a clear and false opening representation that this would be a within district search and then there's this thirty one page attachment not until bottom of the twenty ninth page does the f b i even disclosed that this would search computers wherever located a four page description of the nit never said never even included the where ever located disclosure but it did five different times use the phrase in the eastern district of virginia and that is misleading and yet would have been that the inaccuracy of it would have been well understood and i will reserve the remainder of my time ninety's they did so in order to preserve and on a middy on like the telephone system and this gets a little outside of my tech but the system was created to make sure you wouldn't be known on either side i understand  that boy the way i look at this whole problem is on the one extreme you have wiretaps yes where you're going outside and you're going to be listening to telephone conversations coming elsewhere yes and  register right there's there's no expectation of privacy in the guy that makes the phone call his numbers are going to be revealed yes ok and then you have in the middle you have the tracking device right that's it that's kind of in the middle between them yes ok and so you need it the third or fourth amendment has a little more pressure there right could send that to somebody else to somebody else to somebody else yes but they all he still knows who it is yes right turning to the good faith so i want to know what is the expectation that he's not going to just that i don't run the risk of disclosing my address is the expectation here at least your honor is because from the government's perspective again the only way we could have known those identifying information is that we had to go into the computer and force the computer to produce details that would not otherwise have understand why you have to have the search warrant to in order to get that or stand that i'm talking about my expectation of privacy the address is not going to be revealed is the end of a mini hard wired into the system like as the first intermediary technologically disable from disclosing the identity of the sender if you will intermediary only knows the person i think got the communication from and where they need to send it to and ultimately the way the program works there is a first person you know person or pewter and a server the fact still remains that i disclose my address to the first made ever i said that i pay addressed yes and to that extent it is it just like a pen register well what do you want to call it and a mechanism for tracing it through the intermediary it's yes ok so the number it i'm trying to determine the relevance how many intermediaries engaged in any misleading whatsoever in fact both district courts below noted that and they certainly didn't make the argument that the good faith exception doesn't apply to warrants that are void of an issue and because most of his time terms of the contraband that's where the playpen server was located it's where the nit was installed and it's where the nit deployed for you that debating computer had to reach into order to get that information and the good faith question is whether it would be reasonable for an executing officer to reasonably rely on that warrant and here it was reasonable as not only shown by the fact that all of these courts would have authorized the warrant under forty one operation not make it a wholesale determination by themselves and to the extent that the magistrate judge was wrong and it appears to be a genuine misunderstanding about the extent of her territorial reach again that is not on the agents and there's no misconduct to deter there's also no appreciable misconduct to deter in this case because forty one b six not specifically authorizes these types of searches are sort of back to the first step back in the first case where the forty one the six post h i mean i think they can sort of cut their way out either and so as we discussed in the first case that you know sort of as a policy matter there's no bad conduct to deter or we had to fix this problem that existed vision to the contrary that said that it wants couldn't be authorized under that rule but even if that is not the case again the question is appreciable deterrence and there was no as  appellants claim otherwise there was no short circuiting of the rule making process or anything else again to the extent there was uncertainty the f b i did what we want them to do and with that if the court has no further question the question  electronic media i'm a big huge drug dealer yes i want to get information by wire to the supplier in los angeles and i go through to people to do that  for that that the good faith exception shouldn't apply that we're raising is simply an argument about whether the district court should have granted the remedy that we saw from the outset an argument for suppression is by nature an argument that suppression will result in appreciable deterrence that outweighs the cost and inherent in that is the notion that something has been done that ought to be deterred it seems to me that increasingly the court the supreme court's decisions in  right salute right and but it's just to briefly return to i mean well to finish answering your question i think probably good faith exception made sense when  written twenty five thirty five years ago but but probably now would make more sense to call the deterrence exception frankly but beyond that that plane or argument it's kind of hard for me to respond to because the government  question so you say and these days it's better to the deterrence exception than the good faith exception and that's what i'm getting at is before you get to any exceptions to an exposure is the exclusionary rule today it's better to deterren deterrence justification here information technology has advanced and spread to permeate our everyday lives this revision to rule forty one is not going to be the last made to embrace new technology and it's not to be the last one that takes longer than the f b i and d o j would like the need to deter the deterrence imperative here is the need to deter law enforcement from trying to get ahead of the law