register survey of the front of the house it's garage and driveway for eight months did not violate the th amendment because the defendant simply had no recently expectation of privacy in that area the district court in this case faced with a pool camera that addressed the same area of the prior pin in a manner that rationale could be squared with the rationale set forth a subsequent supreme court opinion as i understand the rationale and bootsy it's fairly sweeping which is that you cannot have an expectation of privacy in things you expose to the public and i don't really see another rationale set forth in duty but i find it hard to see how that rationale given how categorical it is can be squared with carpenter so could you just address that apply not to somebody who'd watsons over the phone booth but to somebody just appearing in public record but after carpenter it is clear that that test for cats can apply to such a circumstance it's  to me to boot she foresaw that aspect of carpenter's interpretation of ken not true that it's required that the court headers for seeing the specific evolution of the law are you know i think that the point is not whether the court knew everything that we now know but as i understand bootsy it says they are not it doesn't say generally and because that's a categorical statement i don't see how one can square that with the upcoming well again i think perhaps i would disagree that one can look at a simple single statement to say that that is whether that can be squared precisely with the outcome is the question to answer the question is whether the rationale of approaching the rationale of which relies on cats throughout the and other cases that are applying the principle that as a general matter several other appellate courts have addressed the same issue based on the same precedents and come to the same conclusion to be sure bushy is a very brief discussion of the issue but he does cite to the same cases that other courts relied on which  of the workplace and could be observed by anybody but that it was being recorded by a camera and the court rejected the idea that there was a constitutional significance to the fact it was recorded whether the simply be some sort of it was an area where a person could observe  could have concluded that cell phone locations no different than business records and the court concluded that's not the right way to look at it given the difference in technology so we've got a case just like that and concern it is under the logic offering to us every house in the neighborhood could have a camera put up forty feet high trained on the front door of every cell of their house without any warrant no suspicion no judicial check and on the government's view that's no cause for concern because when people open their front doors they expose themselves to the problem so what it would it is suppose i was concerned but that doesn't really sound like a free society if it was set up the way we would be the government's more intrusive than they are the programmer here is what we could call a very poor mechanism programmers have been in use for decades the particular type of magnification here has been in use for at least a couple of decades we're not talking about that kind of smooth things raising the particular camera that could zoom in more closely on the outside area was better at recognizing faces why would that be any different given what you say is the principles set forth in b medication did not in that picture show this show anything more than but could be seen from the street show rice and space you could see if you walking by the sidewalk or on the street i think different questions could certainly be raised with the technology exceeds that because the  cases is this right can be observed from a position where the officers have a right to be by ordinary means and this camera did no more than that but there is which one can certainly say that additional concerns arise when it goes beyond that but the case here is limited to question do you see anything in carpenter that suggests a template world limit on the type of technology used here and if it's not eight months is there one i don't think it's there's anything because i think that this falls outside of the rationale that is governed by the existing precedents and very clearly does not disturb attempt to limit those precedents i don't think falls within the general rule that active duty is exposed to the public are just not the subject for the matter of protection so i don't think it ready see in the front can you see the front yard from a public space but the eight months of constant twenty four seventh's surveillance and observations associations no i am not asserting carpenter directly over will i st of all i'm asserting that the privacy interests described and is different from the privacy interest described in this case and therefore the law of the circuit would not preclude und her i don't even know if there was another access to the euro but do i understand correctly well it also captured the right part of the had this case well but this is not a hypothetical situation the no no i get a ad but even the supreme court itself has spent an enormous careful about distinguishing different types of technology and how or whether to accept the old rules as each type of new technology preclude this court from examining whether in this case requires a different resolution then d the court reached in gucci the found that there may have been reasonable suspicion t and the so did have some impact in this case it's not a hypothetical so with just the same rationale apply to an officer serve rolling in with a video camera distinguish between the types of individual serve the actions by an officer sitting in a car and and the tw information gathered to supply a probable cause to do all sorts of other things in terms of getting warrants title three applications etc i'm just trying to figure out at what point one meets under your theory one needs to apply for a warrant anticipating using the camera for weeks with israel nd question just on this record the way it's come out did not understand the government to have ever made any argument this an argument could have been buried that well there was reasonable suspicion so there's no warrant requirement for probable cause with out of there or it might be justified because of the unusual nature of the technology or similar to something else no such argument ever was the broader mood of analysis of what constitutes the expectation of privacy that has been invaded yes it doesn't matter the eight months is too long and whether or not  i ask you one last question and judge branch raise the point of oh what actual information was introduced here what was the content of it but i'm puzzled the way this case is coming up to us as i understand it you've moved to have for picking and choosing well i think that this court decides whether or not there was a search and if the court decides that there was a search then the district court can then hold further proceedings to determine what constitutes carpentering cooperated expressly the analysis of the jones concurrences talking about the importance that the association of interests that are protected by the  th amendment on are of concern and that carpenter it takes all of that and provides a completely different mood of the now in the broader mode of analysis then the court privacy they have to be proactive that is they have to anticipate that the government is going to be surveilling them in order to have an expectation of privacy at the curtilage of a home if this is carpenter worry involved a foot from which clearly it's not the phone that we're using today and still this court said no you can't search for the phone without a warrant and carpenter they were dealing with a technology that was seven years old by the time it got to the supreme court and if you read the arguments before the supreme court the carpenter case one of the concerns of the chief justice roberts was how can there be any any time that you can do this but you can get these documents without a warrant he said i don't see why we're trying to draw a line here and the court did not draw a line saying six days it's ok they said seven days just to launch so so you're saying the poll camera for any length of time is out without a warrant that's what i think is the appropriate and no one should so what about the question that i asked earlier of sister counsel about the officer sitting across the street with a handheld camera and a house in car one of the things that i notice is that when you expose something to the public in your neighborhood you expect your neighbors to notice what you're doing you notice what they're doing that's reasonable for your neighbors or somebody passing by it's different if you're talking about the government when you are talking about what the government can do as opposed to what your neighbor or a passer by can do you are in a different area i take it fan your answer is that the police officer would not be allowed to video record that i am not that is not my answer because i haven't gotten to my answer yet i am serious why don't you get to where you can take precautions when you know you are being surveill seemed to me to be tied in the briefing to duration which was the unique capacity of a pool camera never to tire and to be perfect in its ability to record  duration and search ability what about missing and i think that this camera clearly could focus in on areas of the house constitutionally significant here is what judge found was constitutionally significant the creation of the log that looked into the intimacies of the life of the person because it was continuous written gov that everything he's seen i know that that's possible potential inch but i don't think that happens and i think the more the electronic surveillance we have the less likely it is that they're going to have to do anything either of them put up our camera app and sit in their office and work on a cold camera ok so the argument is it's now become too easy for the government and because it's become too easy things should be constitutional limitations it's too invasive it's not just too easy it's too invasive you had am no more a consumer sitting there so the argument has to be slightly different than that i think that what carpenter said was it is a compilation it is the aggregation of all of that information that is the search and that is the invasion of privacy and i do notice that the th amendment doesn't use the word privacy use the word it's secure against unreasonable searches distinction which may be or both on the question of whether it's a service and on the question of whether it was reasonable is the fact that we have this carpenter and carpenter emphasizes the whole of the movement and that res much with jones which also is worried about now it's true in both corporate and john's one could say that because all of those movements occurred in public it would have been possible for the government to tell someone start on her for the government not to do a stakeout  so why doesn't that matter in your view it's the whole of the movement of the person and out of their home which can hardly be a decision to simply expose yourself to the public and it's also it's not limited to that it's the associations of that person it's one of the things the court said was what happens in the house that's the intimate that's off limits but when you have a poll cameron it the house who's there for how wrong it tells you what is happening in the house there are visitors in the house who they are all of those sorts of things so i think that it's very difficult with didn't listen to the person on the other end and just a steward said wonderful then you can get a warrant thank you thank you  information about the rise unknowable this was information that was noble the same way that you can find the show you want to watch on your v c r and in no other way and the record doesn't support an idea that there was somehow more intrusive possibility from the information provided here often across the street would involve the same area i think it's very likely that there has been in existence for some time again i think it's right within because it's school technology but we could call it a traditional surveillance technique and then it's difficult to see the cover itself allows it to undermine those kinds of techniques when it took the time to specifically say that it did not and finally i guess i want to say that the government's position is not an all or nothing one we did in motion for reconsideration point out the specific faith reason to do this because of the binding nature of the case that was in place at the time why do you not put a price that was not as if every single dime was a for the member charge you have to make a good faith argument but the whole dispute below was whether there was a binding