some of the suppression issues mainly the facial challenge and some of the frank's challenge i guess i start with that i do however want to get to the supervisor of these conditions  page they did not address the index argument and the availability up until the are on or about february th that is the date the security and if you weren't correct there is however a relaxed standard in certain circumstances government argues against that in this case because it was made available i don't think it much matters because are places where they're likely to be but not likely to congregate i think the definition of congress to come together as a group right for for a common michael or activity is in this corner and macmillan actually use the terms interchangeably and it is the case how can  children it should be said i guess that mr safir has never been alleged or there's no information indicate that he has ever committed a hands on offense or put himself in a position where that might be possible  harm to the child in the crime there is a direct correspondence there was no as in this case there is there is not a direct correspondence between the harm and the crime there is a great deal of harm that is not covered by the  pornography but not to entrap right and it would seem sort of strange to say that if the consequence of outrageous government conduct would be to provide a windfall to the people who are accessing the very site that the government was just continu  victims that aren't part of criminal cases i don't know the government's going to notify them but the victims whose images i mean some of the some of the images that were the subject of this indictment were notified writer and they were they were given they missed suffers sentence three were from the playpen site right that while the government was operating it so it's three and i know it's folks they could bring in a suit against the government for this outrageous conduct right but they could but i don't know that have much interest at that point because they've already been compensated but if that's if that's the standard i suppose that's that's enough but i don't think it is because you have a whole pool of individuals who are further in perpetuity being order for the united states the district court below appropriately denied the suppression motion and largely the arguments that are raised on appeal have been laid to rest by this court's decision in and in a summary order in allen the district court also appropriately denied the motion to dismiss the men the question of whether the government's investigation into the playpen website that was being operated on the dark web rose to the level of outrageous conduct has been litigated all across the country not a single federal court that's looked at this question has determined that the conduct rose to that level and there's no basis for this court to decide otherwise explanation for why these kinds of restrictions were appropriate here the district court explained that its sentence in its entirety was based in part on the defendant's years long addiction to pornography and also focused on the fact that the defendant had been able to comply with pre trial conditions of release that were more stringent than these ones and the importance of continuing to have supervision after his well below the sidelines term of imprisonment to ensure that he was not tempted to return to criminal conduct the role requires a reasonable relationship between the conditions of supervised release and the correct that's correct how could the fact that there had previously complied with even more onerous restrictions which may or may not have been conditions and specifically as the ones we're talking about that restrict this defendant's access to minors and it's certainly true that there's nothing in the record to indicate that mr saffron had contact hands on contact or sexual abuse with children but certainly he displayed a sexual interest in children and viewing of them that would make it entirely reasonable to determine that he should not have access to children and when that argument have been was even less of an explanation that was here and to be clear in those cases there remained was for the purposes of allowing the district court to provide a further explanation and to provide more of a record to review on appeal to the extent that it's determined that the district court didn't sufficiently explain these two conditions the government would submit that the appropriate remedy would also be to remain for further explanation not to vacate the conditions  conditions that are appropriate condition number three which talks about going to places where children are likely to be is barely distinguishable from the condition that was held in mcmillan mcmillan also involved the defendant who was convicted of possession of child pornography there was no evidence that there was hands on contact with respect to that defendant and in fact mr mcmillan was subject to a life time of supervised release not  a twenty year term such as mr stafford as and with respect to condition number four it has a commonsense meaning going someplace for the primary purpose of observing or contacting children means that you're going someplace to observe and contact children and importing that phrase primary purpose into this condition show and he go to the beach it depends what his purposes and that's what the reason that this is of the four leon factors which would be the exceptions to the good face exception are present in this case now mr eldridge didn't advocate for all four of them the court notes that he just talks about the  and not about the probable cause prompted the court does say that none of the four are present which would suggest that probable cause was not an issue that would prevent the application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and then allen of course is  published of non presidential but it does talk about the basis of probable cause here among other things though it's you know i mean it's the summary order so it's not presidential basically there is nothing to say whether this network investigative technique insupportable supports probable cause if the court goes back to the record and wants to address that question a new certainly there is basis to find that there's probable cause the supporting that may be that just seems odd to keep saying that that that that the government acts were in good faith not knowing a thing that we never this court has not addressed the question in a published opinion other courts have and again if if that question is raised here so if it needs to be answered then there are facts in the record showing that there are in fact was probable cause to determine that users of the playpen website were using it for the purposes of violating child pornography laws and those things include as noted in allen summary order the suggestive name of the website the very circuitous route that any user had to use not only to find the website on the dark web in the st place but then to register and enter the website it's virtually impossible for someone to have accidentally stumbled into the playpen website and there's also language suggesting before you even enter the website that it's for the purpose of file sharing and num a great deal of reason to find that there was probable cause there is some suggestion in mr stafford brief that there is such a separate question about whether this was some sort of anticipatory warrant that couldn't be satisfied because of the change in the logo on the website the government addresses that question and of course that of the two figures becoming one exactly and that that was not a basis for when the warrant was triggered and  make it clear ok i don't have a problem with it right well i mean i mean in this it's the condition then is including parks schools playgrounds and child care facilities so it's sort of gives a list of the types of things that are in mind sure though it doesn't mean gas station it will doesn't include gas station it doesn't include some of the other places that you mention right but i'd like that to be clear before mr selfridge released in may and and and has to deal with his probation officer wouldn't wouldn't that request met him and if we if we issue a decision it says this condition is ok because likely to be is synonymous with likely to congregate doesn't that effectively grant you the relief that you're seeking access to child pornography in which the website the home page doesn't make it unabashedly clear for example when martin so the government's relying on sort of the the surrounding circumstances about how a person