believed that mr daigle would have s d cards on his person when when he would be found and in fact when he was found he was not in possession of any s d cards seven share folks lack of training cases i think i don't know about countless but i've written one or two of them saying that omissions from a warrant are really of no moment if the problem of probable cause is presented and even even if relevant omissions don't don't know if a showing of probable cause based on independent circumstances correct we do i and the two thousand and thirteen investigation or the affidavit which we discussed in the brief but there are inconsistencies between the phone description and what was presented here including the brand name size that kind of thing that there are issues with that we took w to your point about that he was present and watch the interview and the waltz case similar case where individual or the officer was present and watch the forensic interview and highly relevant information that case not involve highly relevant information and because that case discussed the child in that case discussed matters that did not have to do with the investigation here but here i share folk how highly relevant those omissions were we feel that a strong claim well what what what's the what's the omission or or mistake that gets to frank's here well we feel that there's at least nine of  was there was a mission and that can be with a minimum of reckless disregard for the consequences of those missions so we have that here and then too is that the that the omitted information is clearly critical to finding probable cause and so i think the jacobs cases they found that probable cause was no longer there so if we do that in just a quick question on the probable cause claim before you completely milford or franks is probable cause really just kind of a duplicate of your frank's claim in the sense that your your argument really is that there are some problems with  if you take paragraph sixteen and you start off and you say that the victim jane doe is a reliable source and you do it they didn't jacobson you say you have information back you say but she had given conflicting stories in the in the tw any training on investigations in ten years and even more limited or he didn't do the interview himself he got a professional to do the interview and he listened i can't imagine a more reasonable playing for an officer concerned about whether he might be a little bit out of his element in that interviewing a child on this kind of subject what what better way is there to proceed but i think the point is is that  a suspected child victims that's true i think it's also important that judge holby has an error sure fuck hadn't had any training on forensic interviews in general so he wouldn't have been able to do it he just listen  to any form than opinion you know a lot he's got a lot of experience and forming opinions as to whether someone is as truthful and reliable but a professional do the interview and he listened there's no evidence t forensic interviewer had a different opinion after the interview as are there no you could have the defense could have pursued that shirt well if if if you feel that that part isn't a highly relevant part that should have included that we do have at least eight other pieces of information that probably should have been so and so again going back to the jacob got all the information i needed i don't need to hold a duplicate hearing and therefore i'm just going to conclude that there is no franks violation what what relevance is there to the question i just asked and your case yeah that's important because we didn't have a french hearing following th wait wait i mean forget the labels you've got a hearing and hook is on the stand what did you get the ask the two thousand and thirteen recitation came to light after that st franks hearing and suppression hearing that this is both franks and they were just dealing with all the situation all of the pranks issues that were raised with the exception of this two thousand and thirteen investigation which the defendant has suggested they discovered at some later hearing and found lacking what does this do for our standard or view or how we're would approach the opinion are we reviewing the denial of a franks hearing or we were reviewing the conclusion that no franks violation occurred that inference only comes into play if without the information no probable cause would suffice are not probable cause would remain this is not that case in this case if you take every piece of information every one of these nine challenges that the defense has laid out you put it all in that affidavit it does not put a single dent into the probable cause to search dados phone based on the reliable victim statements made in her friend's interview you put it all in makes no difference and what about the two thousand and thirteen i mean that's actually probably their best argument i know why they're using it and the other say why de gaulle's using it is because it wasn't didn't come up in the franks hearing but you know if i were the issuing magistrate i would want to know that there was a previous investigation th turned up with no charges i mean that that to me would seem to be relevant information if in fact this year and the chef knew about that the record here reflects that the sheriff knew that different victim in may different allegations against a girl two and a half years before these allegations arose were both family though right there both family yes as his his oldest daughter j d and then his next daughter e d both of them made allegations sheriff hook immediately called north dakota b c i and turn the investigation over to north dakota p c i the record shows that he did attend an interview conducted by north of the north dakota b c i with de gaulle the record d not show that he knew r m president participated in a forensic interview what the content of that interview was any allegations that were made by that were not made by her there's nothing in the record showing that he had knowledge of any of that and  the victim in this case r m talks about the previous allegations where her older sisters say in made these allegations they were branded liars and she explained her previous denial in the forensic interview which sheriff hook watched in real time and again later watched the entire thing again and so even if even if he had knowledge of that previous interview two and a half years earlier he watched r and fifteen he judged her reliable and credible based on a nearly two hour forensic interview which she discussed these issues at length and she explained why she previously did not come forward when she was nine years old come forward with what she was experiencing i feel that i have addressed all of the issues raised by council at some length in my mom brief if the court does not have any other questions for me i will yield the rest of my time and respectfully ask that this court or from the judgment of the district court for a ball machine or thank you i think the most important part of this is that judge holby when he was issuing this search warrant she wasn't aware  wasn't aware that two thousand and thirty investigation and for an investigation that involved the same accuser the same defendant the same type of accusations and over an overlapping period from what she stated in the present think also she did pass a polygraph test a person's that mess case no charges were brought in fact the children were returned to the home so he did go through a process and that process cleared him so i think it bodes in his favor that maybe what she's saying isn't accurate and maybe it's not true and further there was there were two search warrants here the st one in november she said that there were at least three of those devices had recorded her at one point  and they searched and seize twenty devices and no evidence was found on those further she said he'd be in possession of cards he wasn't when you add all these omissions in to the probable cause determination and judge hold he never got that opportunity to sell that we're only talking about the cell phone ward which is the nd search warrant that was done in december correct so two search warrants in we're asking i don't i don't understand how the fact that the earlier warrant of other devices didn't yield in the evidence cut you know casts any doubt on the probable cause to search this the phone that was so  nullify the probable cause determination but i think when you add them all in it certainly paints a different picture than what chair folk presented to judge holby and so for these reasons we asked that this court reversed the district court's order and rema