magistrate court and the district court found that the defendant with a danger to the community and that no condition or combination of conditions could assure the safety of the community in doing so both courts recognize that the defendant actions were extreme and that the crimes he committed were distinguishable from other child pornography offenses indeed here the defendant over the course of several years used facebook and other social media application engage minors some as young as ten years old in online chat chat the defendant the friend did and manipulated these children thereby convincing them to create actually videos and images of themselves just for him including one where a fourteen year old girl you're a native and a cop and drink it at the defendant's explicit request in an effort to obtain these images from cell the defendant chatted with hundreds of minors online and when he was successful in gauging conversations that lasted months which often occurred late at night there by stabbing real relationships with his victims and distinguishing this case from the past that received child pornography in june the district court reversed its prior finding that the defendant should not be released based on what it termed a change of circumstances according to the district court insufficient to mitigate the danger that this particular defendant close to the community the district court had observed in february of nineteen in an oral opinion that if the defendant was sufficiently motivated he could indeed find a way to access the internet and continue communicating with minors in the same decision the district court addressed each of the relevant factors set out in th detail and found that it was appropriate that the defendant be detained the only real change in circumstances in the district court issued that decision in february is that the government has  obtained additional evidence proving the defendant skill and expend showing that the scope of his conduct is broader than initially believed and the other change the defendant's ongoing acts of dishonesty with respect to the court taking those two things in order the new evidence is the additional facebook record which ban a broader period show that the defendant was trolling facebook searching for and communicating with minors since two thousand and fifteen as opposed to two thousand and seventeen as originally believed this evidence only makes the government's case stronger the nd actual change in circumstances are the defendant's repeated acts of dishonesty in connection with his ongoing b spring of this year these applications relied on the opinion of the defendant expert dr kaplan to whom the defendant have laws about the scope and extent of his conduct the dishonest back stab is a pattern that when viewed in light of the record only reinforce the fact there's no condition or combination of conditions that can reasonably assure the safety of the community and this defendant district court finding to the contrary it's clear the community can only be safe from this particular defendant whose weapon of choice is the internet if you tend not to access the internet the conditions here do defendant cannot access the internet if he is out on bail the district court eric when it did not heed these warnings instead opted for a remote dive or water monitoring which as explained  actually a weakened form of the very condition that the district court had previously rejected a sufficient to ensure the safety of the community and as a result it committed clear error when it made this decision is essentially it's a way of supervision where pretrial services install software on devices like cell phone thing computers that enable it to monitor the device so from another you're with its utilization and to be clear my understanding is based on pretrial services explanation throughout the course of this case and so here florida the the district of florida pretrial services in that location does not participate in cyber monitoring it doesn't have that capability the eastern district of new york does have that capability those facts have never changed throughout the course of this case in recent history the defendant suggested in his application that because of the way in which diver monitoring is conducted it wasn't really necessary for the people on the ground in florida at pretrial services in florida  i'm quoting from the documentary is able to remotely monitor electronic devices including routers so i'm still confused as to way that it is done your honor is that there's computer software which allows a rd party pretrial services to monitor the electronic device which is in another location here that is electronic devices are in florida but pretrial services traditionally utilizes the supervision goes hand in hand with physically monitoring the defendant checking in on their home packing the devices ensuring that the devices and the software haven't been tampered with and generally supervising the defendant and so at pretrial suggestion throughout the course of this case the only way that that could be done affectively would be if the defendant was located the eastern district of new york where they could administer the program they will not your honor it's only pretrial they do not have that capability and they aren't going to participate in that program so it is only pretrial services in the eastern district of new york and one of the problem is which is highlighted by the eastern dis of new york that pretrial the services will not conduct a search of the home and so to the extent that the person being monitored acquires a device and does not disclose this of that device to it will never be monitored and so this type of monitoring relies on the honor system and the government's position here is that this defendant is not a candidate for the honor system it is not sufficient to monitor only devices that he discloses because he has been dishonest on still many occasions and even trying to perpetrate a fraud on the court back in september of two thousand and eighteen by convincing or trying to trying to convince his you dr drew yes i actually have a number of questions when you st filed appeal in this case your argument was that the district court had not adequately considered the presumption that applied correct correct and that the the district court remedy that in its july order that also correct yes all right so that's not even an issue anymore right right so the error here is that you're saying that the district court eroni asli as a matter of law so off that he the risk of his could be posed to the danger to the community could be adequately dealt with through the various conditions put on you're saying that it's a matter of law he could not reach that conclusion yet daryn that have been clear or has his court ever so hel are not aware of whether the court has ever know how or right here let me let me deal with the florida monitoring if i understood your answers to judge parker you're saying that the remote monitoring from the eastern district cannot be paid aired with on site monitoring in florida because the probation department in florida refuses to do that is that right you are and that is that it can't be done actively as it can be done effectively and to the extent that monitoring might require home visits even searches of the home you're saying that the the southern district of florida refuses to do that yet john have court orders been sought to direct them to do that no your honor and creator out there versus representation that they don't have the capability that they don't have the training and that they will not and when the capability and training did they not have i understand they don't have the capability to do the remote monitoring but as i understand it your problem with the eastern district doing the remote monitoring is there's no onsite officer to enter the home d or check out many computers he's got or electronic devices that seems to me to be the kind of thing home visits that pretrial service officers routinely do so i'm a little perplexed as to what he does they are refusing to do i understand your the pretrial services in the eastern district of new york has explained that the way that they administer the program to the pretrial services office that is monitoring the defendant's devices and understand how many devices are in the home what kind of devices and what is going on need to be able to simultaneously access the home in order to ascertain whether or not it is it is affectively working and  example of that is here when the defendant was released it took almost a week to get the software d loaded onto the phone because the defendant father was not complying with pretrial services requests and as a result there was a one big delay between when the defendant was released and when the software was loaded on to the devices pretrial services in eastern district of new york was on able to go to the home to  deal with the defendant and father in person to ensure that the software was adequately loaded there was a similar issue with the router and it took them a month for the software to get loaded on to the router and it's pretty  check their counterparts in florida would be asked to check has anybody sought orders from either the slaughtered or eastern district courts to do that i mean after all pre trust service is an arm of the court you're out of the government has not sought order to require them to do that but even if the government didn't even if printed out their business in florida does go they are not the ones that are familiar with the electronic devices how they're being used and pretrial services which is the expert here and the hype monitoring has said there is doubt that the person that doing the monitoring need to put hands on the device to ensure that it has not been tampered with and so even if somebody in florida went on a routine basis that being that they are not familiar with the electronic devices and that they are not the ones monitoring the device it wouldn't be effective for them to go and to do that because they are not the ones that are me from my own review of the record that a lot of the discussion that was going on right up until the time the chip district judge changed the ruling was that it was impossible to to monitor the server for the router i'm not sure which device but there was a device that it was not possible to run to remotely monitor and when the district judge was told that that was incorrect and that it could be monitor remote plea one reads between the lines the district judge may have thought that there had been a lack of candor i'm not suggesting there was but the district judge may have thought that and imposed and allowed allowed bail release i didn't see a lengthy discussion about how people had to be on site to determine tampering or that the florida officials were reluctant or even refusing to do this i didn't see that discussion of my and my did i miss something your honor i did give you several citations to the record were pretrial has made it clear i mean from the beginning pretrial has said that it had some reluctance as to cyber monitoring and there was a kind of device that couldn't be monitored remotely explained that it doesn't recommend detention that doesn't recommend release or cyber monitoring at all but stop completely separate and apart from from remote cyber monitoring in florida but also the way that the remote cyber monitoring came out that the suggestion was that the defendants request all along pretrial services to ition that cyber monitoring would not be sufficient here with respect to your honor's question about the district thousand decision because in that decision the district court held that the defendant was a danger to the community and that there was no condition or combination of conditions that could ensure the safety of the community the bail application that was proposed in connection with that february decision was one where the defendant would have no internet access at all and so although internet monitoring has been a feature of the parties discussions throughout the course of the record when the district court found that there was no condition or combination of conditions it was in response to an application that proposed no devices at all in the ho a router to connect it to the monitor there for i would not be able to monitor what devices are actually in that house i would only be able to monitor the devices that if good fan and has disclosed are in the house so this whole concern about knowing what devices he had seemed to all be tied to the monitor i thought and then eventually it was discovered disclosed to the court that yes indeed there could be remote remote monitoring  router isn't that how it plays out when i think the distinction and i think the distinction is that remote monitoring the st the software along whereas the monitoring the pretrial services  initially referring to in the portion of the record that you're citing relates to their ability to physically monitor and and and electronically monitor which the position of preacher out there is that this goes hand in hand in order to be effective and so now what's been a violation of the conditions of bail you know the government just doesn't have any information about a violation although our position is that we wouldn't necessarily know d if the defendant  had given the defendant history as discussed already just because he hasn't doesn't mean that he won't but there were two lapses that i briefly mentioned earlier in pretrial ability to you whether that's accurate the government has no way of knowing whether the defendant is infocom pliant if this if the defendant were to secure an electronic device and secreted in his home there'd be no way for the government or pretrial services to know that he 's doing that or let me go back to let me go back to some of the questions the judge roger already asked where exactly is the home confinement taking place where in florida understand why was pretrial services in brooklyn along with you can't of peer in orlando florida and make an appropriate application and i don't understand why the district court in orlando wouldn't be in a position to instruct through trial services to get the job done i mean as judge roger pointed out pretrial services along with probation why haven't you for doing that for me because the government's position is that cyber monitoring regardless of where it occurs is not an effective condition to ensure the safety of the community and the district court agreed with this position in a prior application which involves a defendant having no internet devices in the home this notion of cyber monitoring is just one condition and the way that it's being administered is in certain respects a distraction from the issue which is that that condition regardless of where it is administered is not sufficient to assure this defendant doesn't present to rest the community regarding the where does administered it relies on the honor system it only works if the defendant disclose devices and this defendant is not amenable to that type of supervision and so even if the government had been in touch or tried to get in touch it would be in pursuit of the condition that the government and pretrial services has has maintained is insufficient the conduct here is extreme the defendant acted manipulatively over a long period of time he's continued to be dishonest to be the district court and he is not someone capable of supervision even if he was in new goal or even plausible that right ye there's some more serious problem with your response it's one thing to tell discord at a pretrial service is refusing to do something it's quite different to say that they don't have the capability of doing something are questions that prompted your refusal and her eventually focused on the need to supplement in florida what could not be done because people were physically in new york they can monitor electronically here in new york but the terms of going to somebody's house they would need someone on the scene now i'm not sure that i understand even yet are you saying the folks in florida were asked to do home visits and refused you know your honor not that's not a capability question and i'm troubled that i don't think your answers have been either or they've either been unclear or they they just haven't wanted to respond to the court's questions so nobody refused to do home visits or refused to count how many electronic devices there were in the home right you're out of my understanding from pretrial representation is that is you know you're going to say if they don't have the capability to do electronic monitoring that's being done out of new york but now you're saying that's not good enough because somebody has to do simultaneous on the scene banks so i don't think you're so dense that you don't understand that we're asking you why did the on the scene park can be done by the district of florida position is that they that they cannot do that effectively because they are not the office that monitoring the defendant the visor well then you try to practice i don't know i don't quite understand some communities i don't quite understand and and it's a matter of court the court it's not even eastern district u s attorney's office the eastern district or middle district of florida i should think that if you want relief and you want this done properly as you will have heard from judge raja and as parker meant you couldn't get a court order or or a judge block can certainly facilitate this by ordering pretrial services in brooklyn to be in touch with pretrial services in orlando or wherever and get it done this is a very advanced system of i think you may have gotten the message counsel but nevertheless let's hear from the fence counsel without doing your own and not larson the federal defenders of new york for mr dortch your honour's as your question to the government reflect the government has not shouldered its heavy burden of showing clear error this is not a bail application this is a bail appeal entirely permissible for the district court to conclude after twenty months of briefing and round of hearings that the government had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that absolutely no combination of conditions could reasonably assure public safety the district court found that the seventeen strict the conditions here will reasonably assure against any danger to the community and that kind of finding as this court  case is quote the special province of the trier of fact indeed as the district court observed at the may th hearing quote i know deutsch i deal with it every night i mean we have had seven  applications we have been dealing with this up and down at that hearing your honor is the district court said it wanted maximum confidence and that is just what it got the seventeen exceedingly strict conditions here quote satisfy the court that the defendant would not now be a risk of flight or danger to the community now your honour's the government mentioned that mr deutsch is solely on the honor system here and that's plainly wrong the seventeen conditions of bail hearing clude home confinement g p s tracking of mr bush's physical movements control of the internet router in the home monitoring of all of the devices and then to the router a one hundred thousand dollars bond that could cost the home if mr dortch disobeyed and mr george is being supervised by his father a rd party custodian and former rikers island guard he is keenly aware keenly motivated rather to ensure compliance your because this home is on the line now to address what seems to be a question of the court about how the surveillance is operating let me be clear mr deutsch being monitored both physically and electronically there  bracelet on his ankle tracking his movement if you leave the house for trial services knows immediately i spoke to trial counsel this morning to check in mr deutsch has left his house in the last three weeks for only two reasons one to either go to court ordered counseling or to go to pretrial services ordered from testing besides the physical monitoring in this case your honour's which would certainly alert pretrial services if mr were to try to go to state an electronics store and buy a cell phone there's also you look tronic monitoring here and let me try to be clear about this the router is a device that allows the items in the home to connect to the internet the router is currently under the control of pretrial services in new york that means that they see all four devices which are connected to the router they can disconnect the device from at least they wish and they will also know if any additional device tries to connect that to the internet now as the government has pointed out this monitoring is being done remotely in new york but that hardly means mr dortch is on the honor system as your honour's pointed out pretrial services in florida is on the ground to ensure compliance they have made a home contact they've seen mr deutsch face to face and they as the government just confirmed your honour's are reported no violations of the conditions but this release your honor can be sure that if anything untoward were to happen pretrial services would respond to your honor's the government disagrees with the district court finding that the seventeen conditions are adequate but that is no basis for identifying clearer that's a court action from the question of case in our breeds again anderson the standard plainly does not entitle a review in court to reverse simply because it's convinced it would have decided t case differently and again the more to your case the opposed is asking out the court of appeals to into terminally excuse me to independently determine the bill question but we are precluded from adopting that standard of review you government and displeased with the outcome but that is no basis for a finding a clearer i'll be happy to answer your questions judge parker i have no  raj i just have a few mr larsen you've emphasized the fact that the parents have put their home in florida can you st of all tell us where exactly in florida that is that the home is in that your client is stephanie spring hill port of your honor spring hope spring hill spring hill and what is would be the largest nearby nearby city the largest nearby the surprising little curiosity by the government and the defense as to where this man actually is but go ahead with kelli according to google  looks like spring hill is just north just north of town ok now long long ago when i was on the district court there was sometimes problems with posting residential property in florida because of the homestead exemption what what is the what is the real risk to mr deutsch his father in florida of ever losing the home main concern that someone might have here on the record is the fact that your client has a record for dishonesty you can you can dispute whether that's so but there are there  might be concerns about his conduct with respect to his father and a prior bail package with respect to his own psychiatric expert and what he told her about the scope of his crimes it does seem that one of the concerns fitted district judge ought to have in allowing any defend admitting any defendant to bail is that he needs it when he says he'll abide by the bail conditions why wouldn't this record to walk that i want maximum confidence i want him to convince me that there was appropriate in this case and that's when the government disclosed finally after twenty months that in fact remote monitoring concern that the district court required maximum confidence about which is even more course than the bail reform act requires the bill report also a reasonable assurance and the court here found that reasonable sure i supplied by the seventeen exceedingly strict conditions the government the government's argument benchley he might they somehow but that hypothetical your argument is not based on the facts of this case the government has an alleged i will how do you do monetarist for for absolutely every communication he has where only to ensure that it's not an illicit communication not to listen for him to go online and shop on e bay or amazon or whatever my understanding and i'm sure the government will correct me if this is not accurate is that the device is being monitored or monitored for all internet activity is going to make those who are living thought there yes i mean scope and the nature of the slaughter and i think there was initially a little resistance perhaps because they didn't quite understand that it's not just a fund here under observation but it's everyone in the house and that assurances goes however to show that there was no clear  thank you thank you catch brownnose i have no questions of the government wanted to create opportunity of taking a minute to answer anything it seems appropriate if i could your honor yes just briefly if i could touch on the technical issue with respect to the monitoring software i just would like use a metaphor it's almost like if you could imagine a bug inside of the phone into the phone it or the device being monitored a phone with the bug would be monitored a phone with no bugs would not be monitored and so the answer judge rogers question the defendant is not permitted to have an internet capable device however there exist in his home now for known devices that belong to parents and those have for lack of a better term bubs on the pretrial services has unlimited access to monitor the phone if another device were to make its way into the home that didn't have that quote unquote on it that device could be used to access the internet to commit crime to do all sorts of things without pretrial knowing council suggested just down his argument that it would that a device like that would necessarily need to access the router but the nature of cell phones these days is that they don't need a router just having cell phone service is enough to access the internet and so these are the ways in which monitoring software can be abated and with respect to the allegation that the government quote unquote disclose something this spring that is inaccurate pretrial services all along suggested the monitoring could occur from the eastern district of new york at the defendant suggestion bring that it could actually be done differently contrary to pretrial services recommendation pretrial services responded that it could technically be done that way it wasn't a the facts of the case is contrary to the entire record because the fact is that in february when the defendant made a valid application that involved him living in a morgue with no devices whatsoever located in  district court found that he should not be really because it could not reasonably assure the safety of the community and nothing has changed in favor of the defendant in that application thank you very much that's parker army from the drudgery are you satisfied that the parents home is not going to be subject to any kind of florida homestead exemption if if there were to block it did not your honor why not because the government position overarching position meant that the defendant should be detained all right thank you thank you can brush thank you thank you coun will reserve decision and