think it's clear pretty clear from the law that the judge sweeney billy allowed agent hardy to testify about the credibility of basically the victim g m c i would note that the state has the government has relied not occur here the only instruction that occurred here was clearly you know the general one about you don't have to diss the snow an expert but as we know from benson and as you're that doesn't work that basically tells as we read i those cases when you have an expert doc about the credibility of a person that basically stamps of a stamp of approval basically told the jury i mean there's g m c had lied to a number of people not only had she lied to the police after her arrest and she had lied rule that you assert that no expert may give testimony that bears in any way witness credibility rule of evidence seven o four bands expert testimony on the ultimate issue and on the defendant's state of mind but it doesn't ban any other kind of expert testimony just this week are you arguing that this testimony comes within the scope of rule seven hundred and four i'm arguing that rule that what i don't rule seventy for talks about the x credibility what i'm saying is they did you got the case a lot of the seven circuit that says it experts cannot vouch for the credibility of another witness and i has extended contradicted done something else with the rules of evidence they already statutes they are and i agree with that but i'm arguing that as you this  done in both benson and a year and said the experts cannot vouch for the truth can i talk about and give the opinion about the credibility of a witness and that's what happened specifically in those cases even though rule seven o four was present at the time that's there but she was allegedly a sex trafficking victim and he basically talked about how sex trafficking victims are you know basically lied to the police all the time she had never met g m c he didn't know or she was a liar she had not only lied to the police but she lied to other people and what hardy had basically told the jury to do was just disregard everything every lie she ever made here and that is a leap that that says basically violates benson and has your ear on her and i think that that was illegal under the situation and i think it just went way too far other courts have said that every case that the government has cited has talked about that these sort of witnesses can talk about practices what happens how these things work out but not about credibility and i think one thing that i do not remember a note is that before the district judge sweeney the government had provided a number of cases one of the cases provided which was jackson out of michigan in that case specifically the judge only allowed that expert to testify as to practices of pimping not a state and he specifically said that's all you can testify to this basically what the judge hart and that is the case that's about and that's the case law that the government cited a a sort of well general practice is sort of which we're not objecting to clearly because that's what the experts talked about but to sit there and get into well you know you can't believe anything she and he lies she said because that's all you know that's what they do so therefore she when she tells you she's telling the truth now that you've got to buy that even though she had a history of lying before during and after this case to multiple individuals and our allies were just so prevalent and he was just a categor well i can get into the i phone argument to i think that the government illegally that all these officers that came to s s his house illegally seized the fire and that that phone i think she was basically  she had no parent or actual authority to give that phone to anybody he had basically mister bines had basically told her on the phone in the police knew about it while he was in jail and recorded phone lines that she was not going to give her a password she told the police i don't have the password to this and if you use this more than one twice it'll it'll get rid of the it'll delete everything and that's what she told the police and that under right in  that that person will get something to someone else thinks well i understand that but the fact of the matter is based upon a right where that where the family in the right had a phone which was basically but they were denied access to phone password all that sort of information she would they were judged sites in that case specifically said that does not give the apparent authority of that phone to our if i pad that the government didn't rely on her are probably irrelevant here are some of the fact that they'd never get the only way they got the phone was because she gave it to them that he hadn't given them the phone physically given them a phone which he didn't have authority to do clearly they would have been able to get the phone they never got a warrant for the phone they would never have been able to search the phone and i think clearly if all was very very harmful to their vices case i think the government indicates in its brief that they rely the government used that phone to basically there was this will imaging on the phone e mail accounts all sorts of things were on the phone were designed to basically inculpate my client and i think that that is basically was an illegal search and seizure of the  you know that that's it it's you you can't use this you can't do anything with this she did not have a parent authority to do anything with it when the police officers basically there with her for forty five minutes get badgering her basically wouldn't let her go but she didn't  to give the phone no she just didn't have the authority they didn't have the warrant they came in basically to tag team her but she didn't have authority to give the phone she was basically told you cannot have anything to do with this phone yet she gives it up because the mother had the right to give them the the safe up to the police because she had been given authority to do so she had to the keypad she gave the keep that information the combination to the police officers in that case so that they could get the  get the access into the say that specifically in categorically did not happen here and i think is the th circuit set in right when that sort of conduct occurs where this is specifically told you cannot have the password information you cannot do that that case th circuit dealt with the issue of the phone and the court said she did the people do not have the apparent authority to do anything with the phone and i think that's clearly what happened here in this these people say the girlfriend and not have any authority to give that phone up pointing that out i appreciate it thank you ma'am please the court my name is out of the command i represent the appellee in this case the united states of america now mr vine's raises four issues on appeal all of which essentially argued that the district court erred in denying on motions the district court did not hear in denying those motions and should be affirmed on all four issues on appeal but during his oral argument he only touched on two so let the court objection has any questions i'll just address those two in my  urn yes your honor the independent evidence was once they eventually got his phone which he addressed earlier in his argument that there was evidence that phone had been used to access facebook had been accessing icloud and had been accessing  backpage dot com which is the web site he used to traffic g m c in this case they also had rip recorded jail calls of him trying to traffic g m c while he was in jail thing that that she should you know not be having sex for free and trying to get one of his friends to temper out and you also mentioned i cloud during those are recorded jail calls so with these jail calls and with the cell phone the police would have had ample evidence to search these accounts and of course in that they said that the sworn affidavits that they are very familiar with these kind of crimes and facebook is commonly used when sex trafficking especially sex trafficking minors the rich are returning to what my opposing counsel spent the bulk of his argument on it was he argues that the district court erred in denying his motion in limine seeking to prohibit agent hardy from testifying as an expert trial and i think this analysis is best most helpfully done i think it would address judge easter books concerns if we stay grounded in what rule governs this issue and that's rule seven hundred and two of the federal rules of evidence that's the rule that says who can testify as an expert at trial and under that rule an expert can testify at trial as long as they are qualified as an expert and their scientific technical or other specialized knowledge can help the jury understand an issue of fact or understand the evidence in this case so a j harvey was allowed to testify at trial because he met those requirements st he is qualified as an expert in the sex trafficking industry his testimony trial demonstrated that clearly and he has had numerous other cases in which he was admitted as an expert in that area so that's an area of expertise when he began testifying he testified with in his area of expertise he explained how the sex trafficking industry traffickers recruit victims how they use those victims to make themselves money and how they manipulate these victims into feeling trapped in a feeling like they can escape the problem with benson as pointed out earlier is that the s agent in that case testified outside the area of his expertise in that case he was called to testify about whether certain items of the defendant's income cofidis gross income and he offered conclusions that had nothing to do with his area of expertise which is tax law and he essentially just assumed other trial witnesses were telling the truth the effect of that i r s agents testimony in benson was he effectively told the jury which witnesses to believe and that was not permissible but absolutely nothing like that happened here with age hardy all of his conclusions that not rely on any testimony of anyone else nor did they even allude to the testimony of anyone else who testified at trial his testimony was just a standalone explanation of the sex trafficking industry in general prefaced what he said by saying he had not reviewed any of the evidence in the case and he had not interviewed anyone related to the case he didn't know anyone in the case so there's no way a jury could have somehow thought that he was telling them which witnesses to believe but to address the point opposing counsel brought up which is even if he did this would have been a harmless error because the court instructed the jury he told them you alone decide issues of credibility and he did include a specific instruction on agent hardy's testimony that said this is that the trial transcript page is one thousand and nine through eleven and he told them you alone decide how credible the jury these witnesses are and treat agent hardy's testimony exactly as you would treat anyone else so that they were it specifically instructed on agent hardy so i think my posing counsel conceded that there's nowhere in this trial transcript that he can point to where exactly is hardy testified to anyone's credibility and that's because he didn't asian harty did not vouch for anyone or did not assume anyone was telling the truth or proffer conclusions d that assume they were telling the truth therefore the district court should be affirmed on this issue an emotional let me just record correctly denied that motion let me turn to the nd issue opposing counsel raising his oral argument you argues that the district court should have did not should have granted his motion to suppress evidence collected from his i phone and i think this issue would be clarified if we kept track of what exactly we're talking about here and there are t police actions that are relevant to this issue first the police seized the cell phone after miss wood voluntarily gave it to them and then the police searched the cell phone after getting a search warrant and i don't believe my posing counsel is challenging the search and i don't think he could because that was done pursuant to a valid search warrant and there's no argument that they didn't have probable cause or that search warrant was a lawful in any way i believe he's only arguing that the search the seizure was unlawful and the subsequent search was fruit of the poisonous tree that argument is equally untenable and i think you're exactly right in these these point you made with judge rovner about the difference between a seizure and a search and the way the courts look at this issue as the court did in james and the judge ruled no you just alluded to it in their prior statements they ask what's what risks didn't mr bines assume and the facts here are he voluntarily gave his phone to miss miss moon then would spoke with the police and she voluntarily gave it to the police that falls comfortably within the rd party consent exception to the th amendment so no search warrant was needed and the search is perfectly lawful i think the issue gets muddled by my opposing counsel when he tries to combines issues of a search and a seizure but really the two distinct things of course he did not assume the risk that someone would search the contents of his phone that's because he had the phone locked and he did not give miss moot the past go to his phone so he did not assume the risk that someone would be perusing his phone without a search warrant that's exactly why on yeah anyway ok yes your honor but to be clear the search warrants that were used to search his searches seat cell phone after they seized it i don't believe opposing counsel has has raised any issues with those probable cause in the search warrant said you know contain and misleading statements or anything like that so once they had those search warrants he had assumed the risk by getting possession of his cell phone to his girlfriend and there's nothing in the record that he said don't don't give this to anyone else or don't give this to the police or go through this in a lake or burn this he gave it to her without restrictions so he gave possession of the phone to his girlfriend in doing so he assumes the risk that she could give it to somebody else she could give it to her or her friends she could give it to her mother or she could give it to the police and that's exactly what she did here she was met with the police they spoke with her and she voluntarily gave them the phone now i think and as oral arguments there was some allegations or at least allusions that she may have been coerced and giving them the phone and there's absolutely nothing in the record indicating that i think my posing counsel said they would let her go until she gave it to them again nothing in the record saying that she was somehow confined against her will and so she gave them the phone  thing in the record that possibly suggest that it's the fact that she was not told she had the right to refuse consent because this as the supreme court said in sac and clock let alone cannot make a consent involuntary so to hold otherwise would run in the face of nd clock and dozens of other cases from that court in the th circuit that hold that a consent can be voluntary units are not told they have the right to refuse consent so therefore because she voluntarily gave the phone to the police this falls within the rd party consent exception to the th amendment heard of the police taking this phone just seizing it was perfectly legal and was perfectly lawful without a search warrant therefore the district court should be affirmed not if she was well that leaves the other two issues raised on a l that were not addressed in oral argument i'll be happy to answer any questions the court may have about those issues otherwise the united states will just rest on our brief result judge hardy in this case i recall reading reading the jury instructions i don't really remember they gave the gen x expert opinion that you can disregard i don't remember anything in their court i'm sure could do it where they told them that they cannot talk about the credibility of a witness now i know that the issue in benson it was going little different when they talked about this individual here the individual at issue in benson but judge but hardy talked about what was basically allowed to talk about all of his other cases where he's allowed to talk about which is basically practices and in being in general my things it's not like that what crossed the line here because clearly he can say well the government saying well he wasn't talking to my g m c but it was pretty obvious it was about g m c somebody never met before it was talking generally telling the jury you do not have her credibility is shot because of the practices and whatever lies she told you was because of something that had happened during the pimping process and that is clearly illegal because was not the facts and that's not the basis that is credibility in biology for the credibility and as you're also talking about that too or an expert was talking about the credibility of g m c i know the government say well he wasn't hard he wasn't referring to a single individual but it was clear it was g m c and he basically told the jury all the lies she's ever given or disregarded disregard those because it was because of anything which tell you know is the truth and that is not allowed and that's what the the district co jackson michigan case of jackson they simply said he was telling her he was telling the jury who to believe as far as the i phone is concerned i understand that there's a difference between the warrant and the seizure of the phone that i clearly understand that they may have had a valid warrant to get the phone once they'd seize the phone issue becomes which they do not have already either a parent or she says it's i'm sorry strike that use s s did not have the authority either a parent or actual authority to give up that phone to the police and the conduct was basically you hold it the phone he had told you that on jail polkas i'm not giving you the password of this phone and edge of police knew about it and that's the difference the the governor wants to make these issues up but it's not mixable the issue is that she did not have the authority in james holds for that position that she did not have the authority to give the phone up or impaired or actual authority based upon the his mother did not have the authority to give up that the safe to the police so that they could later execute the search warrant we're talking about the seizure here in james she did have the authority she had the password and the keypad information here who was