his home address in getting illinois we filed a motion to suppress arguing that this investigation started on october th two thousand and seventeen where an investigative court i mean i think i can find it i wind up having to go to the docket i mean you're supposed to have in the brief unless i just missed it the district courts even if it's in a transcript part which is what i ended up doing is finding a transcript and looking through it how come you didn't include it and it must have been an oversight because normally that the judge would do it by a ruling and i'm not sure ma'am i apologize for that it should have been added to  complex they don't know which unit bats were sharing the child pornography and there's no court that would have issued them a search warrant at that point the officer could not have gone  said hey i can get child pornography at this building and there's thirty two dollars units and the court would have said well which unit do you want to search warrant for and they would have been able to answer and of course they didn't go seek a search warrant for that but the next thing they did is they started an investigative session october th to october th of two thousand and seventeen they've hit more choppered they have the exact same issue as they did on october  th because baby don't know what apartment it is in it's the exact same ip address they use some administrative subpoenas to sort of determine that ok there is one ip address one router for this thirty two unit apartment complex and they are able to determine who is managing the internet service but they are never actually able to decide what unit at this point then the next thing they do the next major thing they do is they run a  donkey it's used simultaneously but this file sharing actually hit that ip address and it hit it on december th of two thousand and seventeen they also see that  on january th of two thousand and eighteen a similar ip address hit using the exact same user now what is a user ashwell the affidavit really doesn't explain it very well but the best you can determine is that when you're on the mueller you donkey you can create some software that allows you to use it and it gives you a unique user hash council do you to address by the could by leon doesn't set of us yes ma'am thank you even if everything you're saying even if everything you're saying is right on probable cause witness will put that aside you still have to here they have no description no description of the child pornography that was actually connected to his address when they connect  it's done january th of two thousand and eighteen and december th two thousand and seventeen but they never even described the child pornography they don't even tell lies in the affidavit what the images were the only thing they did is they say it hit the database and that was a big issue in the motion and that's why we argued and i would i would say that's why it's so lacking because i know it's a seventeen page affidavit but when you read through it doesn't ever explain the files were never downloaded or viewed the files on october th were and the files during the act of the investigator session between october th and october th those were but they didn't know what units so when they actually hit the ikat database december th january th they don't even describe the files that's why it's reckless disregard because they don't ever say what it was not the government both at the hearing for the motion to suppress and in their brief they try to explain it by indicating that well thirty minutes at arc hearing along with a chart a separate chart that added information now i understand you can use a chart in a motion to suppress hearing but this chart actually included additional information it actually stated well and i kept copies database is the database that's referred to in paragraphs twelve and thirteen of the affidavit and that's on appendix forty four but that's not paragraph thirty four in the affidavit it doesn't say that it never says that the only way to hit that database is to be sharing child pornography and that's what the entire affidavit hinges on why the approach here seems to be to take shots at individual facts but that's not what this analysis is about depends on the fatality of the circumstances that requires looking at the whole picture to use th court's terminology as the supreme court has said the hole is often greater than the sum of its parts viewed in isolation you also need to remember that the probable cause determination is far short of certainty also from there only has to be a substantial chance not even a better than fifty percent chance that evidence of criminal activity will be found as the supreme court has said it has to be a fair probability if i could just walk through five little points from the facts that we believe establish probable cause here this again is the whole picture and you have to put this whole picture here together to university number two the affidavit established that someone at that apartment building was offering thirty two said of thirty two files known to contain child pornography over the  device they could do this because on the donkey network each device for example each computer that's offering child pornography has its own unique identifier so number three is a specific electronic device was offering child pornography over the e donkey network from the apartment building in normal on december th about a month later this is now during the christmas holiday break from illinois  was also offering child pornography over the bit torrent network on the same day and number five at the same time the sigyn is during the school year so this is on march th two thousand and eighteen at the same time when someone in the apartment building was offering child pornography over the bit torrent network through a software port used for file sharing someone in reese's specific apartment was communicating through that very same install it chooses a high value port to to communicate through and so again on march th someone in rhesus difficult apartment was using that very same port communicating with bit i'm not sure how the police put the put more the police could have done to establish probable cause someone was clearly offering child pornography from rhys's house and his apartment and the fact that the same device the very same device was offering child pornography from both locations at different times strengthened the belief that that person was counsel talked about the demonstrative aid that government demonstrative they added evidence there is one database one law enforcement database of computers and devices ip addresses offering child pornography devices and ip addresses that are offering child pornography and then true only later on is it referred to as the i kept cops database it might have been better to have pointed out early on that yes that is the  year finding of bad faith requires some showing of highly unusual circumstance and that certainly doesn't the officers here executed the search warrants relied relying that exception also asked the four to consider would quit have been put would be the cost of a finding bad faith here or there would be a very substantial cost finding bad faith specifically a man who say is that the affidavit doesn't say that the affidavit says that there was child pornography on october th two thousand and seventeen and a files that were hit october  counsel is a green agent to some extent that it that affidavit does not say that i kept cops database is the data base as it is laid out in paragraphs twelve and thirteen it is confusing and certainly it is something that did make it less clear as far as the good faith exception goes it you know most of these cases do not involve the router the discussion of routers ports user hash is we also have a a transit device that's hitting and multiple locations you know typically they will they'll hit during an investigative session they get that page affidavit that talks a lot about a lot of computer stuff but it never connects the dots thank you very much thanks to both counsel in the cases taken under advisement