really should be reversed for three reasons first they weren't authorizing the f b i s use of a network investigative technique or net to locate and identify anonymous users the hidden child pornography website la was properly issued percent of federal rule of criminal procedure forty one b for second the new warrant complied with the fourth amendment warrants requirements it was supported by probable cause sufficiently particular and issued by a neutral and detached prejudicial or substance or violation of rule forty one the evidence of child pornography found on the defendant's computer is admissible pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule the f b i agents promptly sought and were granted judicial approval  they did the right thing they submitted a detailed affidavit explaining how the date would be used stating the basis for probable cause and they submitted this affidavit to a federal magistrate judge in the district with the strongest connection to the crimes under investigation they had prior to submitting this affidavit obtain judicial approval to use and it's in other cases and they reasonably believed that this was a valid  could be issued by this magistrate judge when they obtain judicial approval of the warrant they executed it within its scope and they did not do anything and there's nothing in the record to suggest that there was any deliberate deception or intentional misconduct under the circumstances where there is no law enforcement misconduct involved let alone any egregious or particularly culpable misconduct the good faith accession appl entering an invalid warrant is a system that was then relied upon in good faith by the officer to address an individual so in that sense that was a very serious mistake and yet the supreme court found that it wasn't one that demonstrated systemic is clear that the remedy is separate from the violations in this case even if you were to find a fourth amendment violation like in leon there is a lack of probable cause if you were to find now that there was a lack of particularities the fact that that extrapolating not very far from those principles any violation whether of the fourth minute requirements would not preclude application  doctrine of good faith is well established supreme court's precedent  and thereby his interaction with the d o j and u s attorney office attorneys had to have given him this awareness because they were clearly aware of it the d be limited to the district of virginia but we go over the country indeed all over the world the computer crime guide itself flagged this problem for people in the government such as the f b i and assistant u s attorneys so they knew going into this that rule thirty one was likely to be an insurmountable problem so they began the process to change rule forty one i cited in my brief the minutes of the meeting in two thousand and fourteen with the criminal rules committee it was a cope from the far because the reason a different deterrent effect this is a long time problem that has been solved by the change in the rule so what's your response on that  justice were directly involved in this crudeness application and submitted it to the court so put the blame on the magistrate judge is an appropriate when in my brief had applied for a bit more and the search was to work her at a location within the district and elsewhere outside the district the war was not approved because it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court so when they applied for the rule the application was different all they talked about was we're going to search that when the congress created the poor paris the act of creating federal magistrate judges they put limitations on them they could not do certain things when  when the judge goes beyond that initials a warrant it's like a clerk of the district court issuing the warrant you she did not have the power i submitted your own of that this was a systemic error and an intentional violation of the law by the department of justice and the f b i was located in that department and suppression is called for i think one of the best decisions i've ever re is richard l and which two members of this panel participated and when they concluded by saying suppression of evidence seized by means of an invalid warrant is appropriate to compel computers located in at least twenty six different states and over one hundred countries around the world without a name or identifying a single one of those computers in the war itself is no warrant at all nothing comparable no comparable warrior would ever issue it in the physical world and in fact in this case such a warning like this was on a necessary to the quantity of computers that are searched it could very well be the case that the f b i applied for a particular warrant under the new rule targeting a particular user and because particularities contacts  that in a particular application of of  necessarily what made possess the server they had a history of the universe or activity on the site so they could have taken that information and applied for a particular warr activity on unknowingly if a warrant in this case is up held that allows a search of thousands of computers based on a single warrant it's quite likely that the f b i could turn around in a future case obtain a single search each and every activating computer that logged into the plate and child pornography website and that situation they've established that no matter how many criminals were attempting to distribute share of you or down the child there's a there is warning on the home page before a user logged in that said do not use a real e mail address do not put any information here that could be used to identify you we will not identify you we will never send you e mails it was very clear that these were not real user names that could have led to the identity and location of these persons so in this situation the information provided in the affidavit substantiated probable cause and also because to say in response to that i can only speak to what i've read in the public documents that defendant has submitted and also my own review of those documents in terms of the department's position and that is that in a case about it there would be like it is information was not content and i do not know what a search warrant would look like but in order to satisfy a particularly requirement and probable cause i would imagine that it would have to be similarly limited in the amount of information it's trying to attain in order to i'm only aware of child pornography cases for in the lawrence that have been unsealed in my understanding of this case research involved i imagine it could be used to apprehend criminals who are hiding their identities through and on and eyes in technology w it's used in terrorist cases i can't recall the name of one at this point i recall that reading that in the papers that were submitted in support of the and then to the world there are no further questions we ask you to reverse