may please the court there is the four million in the united states constitution is designed to protect the citizens of the united states of america from unreasonable government intrusion it is therefore a shield middle speech when it was too little private and secured left from undesirable s should be decided on whether or not you know a particular individual sensibilities are upset however in this case the pictures clearly have an effect on the airfield of them if if that's the case well the police officer said he was freaked out by determination that they are in fact child pornography here we have merely a search warrant affidavit and the question is whether or not it's the one who true that or actually occurring according to our supreme court it does need to be more likely true than not the question is whether or not interpret it in a reasonable commonsense manner somebody reviewing the war to determine that there is evidence of the crime in the little kitchen to be searched if your crime is child pornography that a picture of a child displaying the genitals the good faith exception to issue the fact that we're having this argument right now shows that belief in the existence of probable cause is an entirely unreasonable so we could look at the search warrant affidavit and conclude that there is child pornography of this person's the officer executing a search warrant when the officer executing the search warrant look at the war he would at least see those two elements in there something that perhaps you might argue doesn't sufficiently state probable cause but it doesn't render official  entirely reasonable used the term displayed with respect to these young children and the fact that it had an impact on him if he didn't have an impact on him it likely wouldn't be child pornography all that being said once the search warrant was signed by the mission judge the officers had an unquestionable i mean if there's some sort of guilty mindset there any i would think would be on the officer in this particular instance to ask well you know if you walk up to working in this machine did he actually see what you were seeing and we don't have it from a ship in the search warrant  in tandem with this assistant state's attorney should know that something more is required just i saw naked pictures of children which happen to display the rest of the giants in the it takes something more than that especially since that describes many different forms of constitutionally a particular context it doesn't require three pictures of pornography or even a cash pornography there are certain instances where your family's moon keepsakes could be child pornography in somebody else's hands same thing goes with medical records  child pornography in the defendants possession is just go pointed out to you could reasonably infer consciousness of guilt from the defendants actually in this particular case just from the four corners of the affidavit if one wanted to challenge the affiance account of the to the week after this particular incident good news in a motorcycle accident reported it two weeks later we don't know the extent of guernsey's injuries of course but i think it's reasonable to assume from this particular affidavit of these particular circumstances that there are always tak the search warrant was selling officers had every right to reasonably rely on it there is no bad faith in this case and there's nothing in the record showoffs that very simply dictates the application of the good faith exception it's the reason why the supreme court three rather than one is certainly significant i mean it's the difference between saying i saw a small amount of cocaine or what i believe to be cocaine versus a large amount of cocaine it certainly dictates the likelihood that there is something i