good morning and ma'am please the court there are two very different issues in this appeal the first dealing with the search warrant and the second with the sentencing statute what's the military minimum and maximum so the first issue is it's pretty straightforward the evidence in this case came from a state warrant that was based on cation that explained how a woman had come into the police station essentially out of the blue and said her that she looked at child pornography her story was pretty detailed and obviously the officer found at the serving but that's all it was it was just her story that was what was in the application there's nothing corroborating it no investigation to spread so this point no one is arguing that that's probable cause but the question is whether a reasonable officer could think could incorrectly think that it was attorney you know we've we've had to sort of figure out she is the notary says the district attorney but there's absolutely nothing in their court describing a conversation sharing any concerns about the case with the district attorney mulling through the challenges of what we have here which is just a single woman story a woman that nobody knew before she walked into the police station and so there are a couple of cases where the court has said that consultation with the prosecutor is an important factor but in those cases there was evidence of a consultation so i don't mean to say there was no contact with the district attorney just that we don't know what if any conversation with had and whether she really thought through the legal and that being sufficient for probable causes and some old arrest cases you know she he is running off with this and the cop goes and gets it not home searches but even in those cases that were cited here there's something more than what we have here either the officer knows the person the person with on the job or there was actually some preparation as if this is really far lower than anything this court has seen and found probable cause she did first of all encounters this person now when you look at the statement whatever we did i guess he was a what have you called a red registered fender what do you have to do to it is that true or does it matter while it it wasn't part of the application so i mean you know that's why i say this whole thing when you describe this when she describes what he says that i don't have anything to worry about meeting her this is what he tells her i don't have anything to worry about because in fact she has two little boys and he's only interested in girls and then he was going to say that that he thought he could be typical reading and he said he felt like he had to tell me because he was my neighbor and i had and she had young kids so he thought mr tell her this i don't know whether that's the only person ever told or whatever but it's the whole conversation and whatever in her reaction it was pretty alarming she single mother jet to little kids moves out stays with her mother that night and then writes this out i don't necessary to go in and say with this and i don't want to use any nicknames for him but it's pretty bad what he did said you do what kind of a person he works for this is this is very unusual i mean the woman coming into the station out of the blue talking about a conversation that came out of the blue but we have to remember that literally everything in her story is simply from her the fact that she was his neighbor the fact that she was essentially a citizen informant her children what he told her anything it was all exclusively from her story which the police then had an obligation to corroborate something at least look into her look learned look into you know really any facts that would show you know under the totality of the circumstances test there isn't sort of a checklist like you must have this this and this a deficiency in one area can be made up for another area so you don't think that the fact that she you know she appears in person and she signs her certified state men she comes very quickly to the police station you don't think any of that makes her more credible than many other sources of police information well a couple of things i mean again we know from her story she says this happened recently she says she came and quickly but in some i mean we all know that their issues with confidential informants and the people that police are usually dealing with they have a lot of baggage but we know with their baggage i mean really know who they are where they're from or at least the officers do and they can say you know we found this person to be reliable in the past and we know what they're after in this case because they rushed so quickly you know perhaps because she seemed alarming it alarmed the officer and he felt like he had to rush but this wasn't a situation where there was an accident what the officer needed to do with investigates the report that was made and include additional facts related to his investigation to get a warrant that w any other because he laurie in your rebuttal time ok i'm sorry i'm going to have their issues well the second issue is the sentencing issue and while the warrant issue is the first highly effective pacific this doesn't involve facts really at all we're just comparing a state statute to a federal standard we're comparing legal elements and we agree fair that we need to have a categorical analysis but we're not agreeing on what the federal standard is because essentially the government  arguing this court shouldn't even be defining us standard it should just kind of say well obviously his prior offenses like a predicate here but there are two really important case points to make and that's that the recent supreme court cases have made it clear that the categorical analysis requires a standard that provides notice that can be applied consistently that doesn't require judges to look into the underlying facts of the case or to make kind of spur of the moment judgments and second that nothing is really obvious in this area of law with the categorical analysis and that's particularly true we're looking at a statutory rape case that's a fairly recent legal creation and that has very specific policy judgments that are made by the various church jurisdictions about ages prescribed conduct age differences so the standard of the statute here was  overbroad for two reasons the lack of an age difference and also this very broad definition of sexual contact that doesn't mesh with the federal definition or the other states and so again nothing  you would would be the appropriate sentence well the sentence was raised from a zero to ten statute to a ten to twenty the judge in this case said absolutely i wouldn't give you anything higher than ten but i'm required to give ten so that's i'm giving i think an appropriate sentence would be the judge considering all of the facts and circumstances of the federal case and all of the facts and circumstances of mr gleason's history and coming up with an appropriate sentence under pepper under weeks in the county jail before this charge even came not related to the particular issues here but relevant to his age thank you thank you they have please the court julie program to have the government as defense counsel noted there are two distinct issues here the first one is the search warrant and the search warrant the court the district court found there was no probable cause we didn't object to that and we're not appealing that's we're not looking at the probable cause here what we're looking at is did chief trickster rely on this search warrant in good say there's no question and state he had any bad motives there's no question that the magistrate was not in neutral detached measure it so we're only looking at the for story well that doesn't go to her credibility and that only goes to the fact that there was a little bit of cooperation that it's not that the chief did nothing what adds to her credibility is as court he is attracted to best sense girls as in in contrast to a pedophile who's who's preview about it her using terms that she didn't she clearly didn't know what they meant it that gave it credibility that she's not making this stuff up additionally while she for someone was coaching or what to say and the magistrate found that that was highly unlikely he found that the chief saw her in person the chief found her credible the chief did a look up to mr gisele and was a registered sex offender and did have this part conviction for molesting a five year old she didn't include that so that wasn't part of the probable cause  that's part of his own belief as to why this was likely true and so all we're looking at here is was it objectively reasonable now the defense says there's no cases that say this is probabl cause ok we're not arguing probable cause we're saying good faith and they can't say any cases where this was found not to be good faith in kate in fact based on a case of us first from two thousand and three where the district court found no probable cause or the district court found probable cause an appeal this court said no no no probable cause but there is good faith on the facts and very similar to this case so that the but the good   was a registered sex offender was not part of the affidavit so when and how would the officer know that the judge had that information which i agree you would have it would be good faith if you had that information well so good or would have put in his warrant this prior conviction then it definitely is probable they're both saying this is a very close call that's what good faith is it's not something it's so obvious there's no probable cause it's something that's very close which goes to chief turps true reasonably relying on this when it's a close call how can you say well there's no way you could have relied on this my second issue is the ten year mandatory minimum now eighteen u s c twenty two fifty two b two doesn't require an exact match between a prior state conviction and an equivalent federal statute and what it says is the product of fiction must relate to  a federal offense now we quote in our brief that we believe this are you know was raised because it wasn't brought up before the district court so we believe that this would be a plain interview but even if it's been over review whatever the court fin s it's clear here that what mr peterson was previously convicted you relate to a federal offense what he was convicted of was sexual contact with someone twelve and under in what the federal statute is is  sexual contact for someone under twelve is is the conviction now in i have warrant this court said that sexual behavior is abusive anything closer this isn't the i was born case where i've been as court was concerned about maybe it could be a sixteen year old who was touching an eighteen year old there's only a two year state dinners and maybe that's not abusive in this case the oldest the child could be is twelve and so the only difference between the federal statute in the state statute is that one year difference there in the government's you is related to now you know we believe that whether you give a generic meaning under the cancer taylor or you look at the related to either way what mr beason was convicted of follows the supreme court has not made a ruling on which way you should go but either way you go mr runs would it be applicable that's it was say i don't know four year difference and he could be convicted under a state statute for her says the federal well the difference here is great if there would have been the for your age difference this would have been an exact match because there's not the four year age difference the federal statute is under twelve the state statute is twelve and under so the question i guess would be so where would the government draw the line right would it be thirteen would it be fourteen what i can say is that we don't have the i was born type of concerns or this isn't going to be to high school students who are kissing that's not what his previous conviction could possibly be for what his previous conviction is for it's more touching someone who is under twelve and whatever line you draw whether it use a specific bright line thirteen fourteen this is going to emphasizes the sort of a good like you to judge the level of detail the unusual nature of this to bolster the warrant but of course good fiction is very detailed and interesting and novel and the truth is also detailed and can be interesting and novel and the only way for an officer or for a judge to tell the difference between fiction and truth is to investigate the case and the second point i'm making about the sentencing issue and that's although the government in their brief said that the court didn't need to use the categorical analysis it sounds like at this point they're i mean they're throwing it out the window because if we're going to true relating to similar to that's different from an elements to elements issue which is what the supreme court said is required you know maybe not for things in the guidelines after beccles at least but certainly when we're talking about stats torrie sentencing laws there has to be elements to elements match and you know one case that wasn't cited in our analysis in an immigration case where the law was relating to a central substance offense and the government was essentially making the argument that a drug paraphernalia a crime out of kansas or somewhere related