the married woman from mina does it for forty years before she finally reciprocated his romantic overtures in this case there's no doubt mr collins was very persistent and he was not particularly eloquent maybe at some points he was even uncouth but the question that is presented to you in our sufficiency challenge is whether or not the government to do circumstantial evidence upon which a reasonable jury can conclude criminal intent on the part of the problem under section twenty two sixty one a please let me say at the outset that we understand the dichotomy of or do often i guess of twenty to sixty one a the two prong requirement we don't dispute the j m p testified that she suffered some of motional harm she said she went to a therapist i'm sure that  did have emotional harm the question is whether or not mr collon based upon evidence of the events that in themselves were not illegal and criminal intent to cause that harm we would argue your honour's that of  course he did not for instance he would send me text messages but he sent you know some that were flattering some that were perhaps even offensive but at the end of the day would he still want her to do list to reciprocate his emotions that was not would always tell most of these people have no more power than you give them in your own mind than what about when you contact the church members and co workers yes i know he did contact the church and he did at one point to track that and then he called back and kill injure harass or if anything else maybe he was saying some nasty things about her professional comportment i don't think it wise is that level of criminal conduct as required under section twenty two sixty one  public figures that's how collin got reconnected with she had had this celebrity after the fort hood shooting and maybe his death tolls a little bit more into my vagueness challenge to the statute as public figures people are criticized all the time think total stranger soon not be to this was a this was a personal thing for him and her oh yes he wanted to there's no doubt he wanted her to reciprocate with room antics feelings i guess implicitly to leave the husband but that in sufficient from the go to the sufficiency argument the still of the problem is under the statute doesn't give a person of ordinary intellect fair notice as to how they might go about aggressively trying to get someone to reciprocate  political discourse in honor criticizing a elected officials vote you're certainly and you say something nasty and horrible like i hope you lose the next election you're certainly trying to intimidate them presumably to vote in some other way are you even to get her soup a attention to him to get him to reciprocate in some way to get some personal talking on the phone not just the e mails and first she played cohen and there was some e mails and then the officer king called even then judged there was was sufficient evidence of his actual intent to kill injure harass other things under the statute as opposed to simply trying not successfully but to get her to acknowledge him and to reciprocate him in some way and if she had done that i think it probably would have and but even then your honor i am that he wasn't easily deterred but again that's not the question on the stand she did the government do circumstantial evidence that there was an intent to do all these other things maybe he would have done better as he would have done better to case was not successful but of course the problem with both and as applied constitutional challenge and a multiplicity challenge is that it's case specific what did mr conlan do when the course of conduct is the unit of prosecution there's no doubt we've been talking now for the policy of my time about mr cummins communications and interactions and so forth with j m p the object of his affections and yet there was another count at all this additional time because just a few stray comments that he made about j p who again was also a public figure like what your best case and your pioneer review in this court does not address the issue but another circuit court hasn't come out against you that we would recognize this is assuming we agreed with your considered it and that first circuit would necessarily for close and you the other regional circuits from ever finding that a statute was multiplicity even if they disagree don't dispute this other circuit was is because persuasive authority is another circuit court of appeals just because they're the like a first mover advantage the fact that they're the first ones to to say i don't know necessarily composer result that nobody can capture playing there just because you know the circuit didn't didn't move first look my briefing i'll try to get you  twenty two sixty two essay the course of conduct is the unit of prosecution the defendant must partake in even not looking within their circuit separatists under multiplicity standards who would argue that still the course of conduct under bell and all the he got this arrest warrant issued there were these other officers who were sent to search who tells in the area of the course of the written down under false pretenses to the room even if under a chrisman versus washington the police no problem with with any of that the problem is what is the immediately incriminating nature of the things that they saw in the room in the government's response brief they don't dispute with my contention that it's reality of modern american life that laptops and cell phones are in to get a him do you want to go up to your room to get your stuff and he said yes that's correct yes you do you want to get your wallet and your keys and say obviously you can't take the laptop and cell phone when you get booked in i mean that's that's that's of is the big problem i would point out the judge the officers testimony and i'm looking at particular both record page nine one seven and then again in the testimony of officer murray at nine thirty one and the defense lawyer asked very clearly question was nothing obviously apparent with the phones or computer when you evidence as a possible would also argue on that was the evidence if the jury was to have circumstantial evidence before which of course we dispute that they did that if there was any evidence with regard to the intent to kill injure harass or intimidate that cannot justify seizure of the car on the ground that such action is needed for protection the vehicle and its contents in this case the judge when they said even more problematic is the fact that the police stated reason why they needed to impound and you know get that car out of there was the common was going to be of that not only were none of the three officers shelley and maybe the ones who testified ever able to say or put any report any agent of the motel ever told them that they needed to get the good morning your honor scott and i was on behalf of the united states going some of judge owens questions i think there are actually a lot of very simple straightforward ways to resolve some of the issues in this case given standards a review so i'm going to try to go quickly through some of the issues that mr  indicated those are both on plain error as to vagueness three other circuits looked at this issue on the biggest challenges and all of rejected the vagueness challenge the twenty to sixty one a and so absence and we said to howard mcrae cases from the circuit which both in a pla clearly falls within the statute is quite similar to the fact patterns that the first circuit the ninth circuit and the four circuit had before it in the cases where that those courts rejected vagueness challenges to section twenty two sixty one and as to multipl graded to a person so you can imagine easily imagine a scenario where starting conduct is directed a husband and wife or a mother and daughter and that different harms results that may be one suffer serious bodily injury but one doesn't under the statute that would be punishable by different different range what's the best evidence that he was stalking has been well the best answer something has been was that the indictment charges at least one specific communications directed at the husband on the blog post where he commented and referenced chicken head hunting in texas i think that but they both victims testified they understood that as a reference to the husbands using musician so there are in some of the some the text messages and emails referenced musicians and johnny cash want to be so some of those were directed to  what the communication it said it referenced referenced seeing the victim's husband's mother in a porno movie and asked if he was scared and then that echoed some of the text messages he sent where he asked he asked the female victim whether her husband who he called princess was ready for a face to face confrontation so he sometimes used j m p female victim as a conduit to get messages i think to the husband but there was at least one communication this charge in the indictment was directed specifically at that has been not true j m p at all and then the blog post which was on a comment in a public forum in the blog post referencing chicken at hunting in texas so those are two communication i think they were fairly one was directly to the husband one was  course a spot where he would easily see it personal situation that escalated from sending the flowers the first ominous message warnings from the family and warnings from the police references to the victim's address and then following through on those and again it's not just one instance of so it was obviously terrorizing not just the bits and not just her husband but even putting her family and then of course after he was arrested in this offense he can see into direct mailings to the victim her family met when mention her sister and marriage and inmate marriage proposal sent to the victim's sister and then additional one final mailing to the victim as late as march two thousand and thirteen so this kept going and again i think in the face of the warnings to desist the jury could quite clearly infer the necessary criminal intent especially because they heard they heard the conversations with the detective they heard the voicemail messages during the record before the court as the government said it wanted government exhibit six and six b so if the court has any concerns about that the jury first heard the intonation and heard whether reasonable person would look at the collective knowledge of the officers and i think mr mr creditors argument here it speaks a bit to kind of a temporal aspect of it to the officers have to know the second they see it that this is this is an item they can seize and this court decision and walter i think we here we're not asking for a ruling which electronic devices can be seized routinely in a matter of the nature of the offense but we're talking about in effect stalking offense interstate stalking that involves e mail messages and basically was perpetrated through electronic means was really compelling even without the gun even without i should sorry let me go back one moment on her we mentioned mr cruncher read from the fate of chapter about the community caretaking empowerment of the car the district court's ruling here is actually quite different in that the court court did have some trouble with the evidence not point and did even some confusion about what happened with whom the officers spoken to motel so the court actually resolve this case based on the base in the cooper line of cases from this court that a vehicle that an instrument or evidence of a crime can be seized and or a probable cause standard suggestion probable cause to believe that the vehicle which of course had vehicles which mr holmes had driven across state lines driven to the victim's house and that sighting of him there had prompted the arrest warrant in the case that somebody in the hotel did say we get his car out here and him he can't watch it anymore we want to car what was the evidence on that yet the evidence wasn't it was in the evidence was was basically three fold on that point first the officers report under state one step back factually because the competency proceedings in this case the suppression hearing happened over two years but soon a half years after the arrest so the officers are testifying sometimes the things that happened quite a long time ago but the officers that that sheffield who had there it had a conversation the manager testified consisted with his report that that's what happened and that she was recalled to give some more details about that where the conversation with the manager took place later on the government didn't really didn't i think it's a would be an issue it wasn't really raised in the motions briefing and so when the hearing was continued for argument on the motion to suppress about two weeks later the government proffered a statement from without without the speed a statement from the motel clerk would actually place the call to so we're looking at the impoundment and the inventory has had two separate fourth amendment issues the inventory isn't challenged that's kind of the sequence of events that happened in the florida versus white case in the supreme court it was there was season forfeiture in that case but then the evidence came in it pursu inventory search the same sequence of events here even impoundment either as a probable cause seizure or community care taking impoundment followed by really unchallenged inventory search pursuant to austin police department rules the last issue that i want to address again just hasn't been episodic mr common and changed a little bit in the briefing is the speedy trial issue and those issues are kind of tory asli fact specific one might say little bit boring sometimes as you're basically about medical clock but i was going to say that i think there are some kind of tricky issues that we flagged in there about the district courts are divided on about how the transportation delays and thing and issues like that are are resolved and one way easy way for the court again to avoid that with a seven month open and a continuance the other one which i which kendall your honor i just really realized in preparing for argument before the court the other one is a little bit trickier because it's and suggests a solution it looks both forward prospectively  opinion in which this court had addressed that exact issue and there was his testimony at trial that he wanted a lawyer that would do what he told him to do not that he wanted to represent himself so what was i was a little bit confused provide the best defense is that as an alternative to a lawyer he was unhappy with he was willing to represent himself and his last request i think specifically said in the meantime so he contemplated being the point that a new lawyer he just wanted to assume self representation in the meantime a very extensive discussion kobe in that in the judge's ruling the pages attend sixty six and sixty seven the record is a very extensive discussion judge people reviewed the entire history of a case and made his determination to reject the motion in the context of that entire case wreckers on the freddie issue just with the court all right well are you prepared to go to trial on monday august nineteenth column well i am yeah out why would not be on the next page page one of three seven conlan well i guess we go to trial on monday then the court the unequivocal waiver of the right to be represented by a lawyer as required under threat of and at that point college of course would have been in the situation of stepping into the procedural pos of the case as it happened we're certain rulings of the made and so forth but he did have that right turning back to the fourth amendment issue on the collective knowledge been tresco whitley fellow agent rule i would argue just myth that under this situation that you have here the officers who made the arrest marine chef each had not been in doubt with that information from judge king i'm looking at page of them just going from officer king i'm looking at page nine thirty one of the record question nor has she been given instructions to seize them or look out for them before you talk to can right this is the course of the things in the in the room answer yes question the bolo the be on the lookout says he may be are mentally unstable be careful answer yes question doesn't say anything about looking for evidence of any crime right no sir similarly on page nine fifty six of the record this is regard to  hotel before and somebody had told me that you're not allowed to keep your things there if you've been arresting misbehaved out right away none of those officers could tell him who on this occasion told him that was motel six as policy and moreover the two people who were called the motel six especially the actual manager in the lobby who was the one who made the call for calm on the come down into the lobby under the false pretense he was unequivocal i close with his language in the brief as i don't bow down any police officer i know what our policy is that nobody that that was the case here i'm looking at page one of three one of the record this is right meet the sentence before he said the evidence is very sketchy here this is the first the second hearing where he actually made his ruling quote i do not find that the statements that the police officers placed in the report showed that a manager because there has not been an identification of anyone who was in fact a manager told them that mr conlon would be evicted and that they would toe his car and own words the inventory search how to spin the government's case that this court's previous of the austin in this case that said that these before you even got to him into research that these things need to be taken from you know the hotel room and placed into the car much less that things in that car a the gun in the night stick with trying to meet the floorboard needed to and the nightstick regardless it's again it's our position at the risk of redundancy that there should not have been this inventory search in the first place because mr conlon unlike a lot of the other cases would have been in the tree search of the cars of the community exception  as of the time those officers made the arrest even if it is true that mr calls we never did bond out as we know he's been in custody ever since he could have simply arranged for a friend to come get the things he could have sent from missouri coming get the things there was nothing that says that those things had to be taken out of that hotel room that also further removes this case would argue from situations where a car is in a public place like a parking lot in a mall or something where you don't have a  incident to his contract with the in it's called a motel because you can put your motor vehicle next to your room and i thought i thought that's your case understood next case