in this particular case the the facts are largely undisputed the legal conclusions are are disputed during the middle or the course of the trial it turned out that mister stanford garbutt the government's informant had been told to collect documents from the office of his shelton and various other places and he went and did that before hours and at the direction of the requirement the district court erred in focusing his decision on his determination that ms shelton whacked privacy in her workplace and we believe and propose that this was a violation of supreme court law starting with the easy burst of forte finding that privacy in the workplace isn't right that's protected and recognized under the th amendment and further recognized more contemporary more recently in oliver vs the united states d saying that there are deep roots in our legal history which recognize this and also in the court's decision in o'connor honor i think it's a little bit more complicated in this case and than simply removing the information and the reason why this is so is that mister garbett was the heart and soul of their case and mister garbutt illegal search was not only evidence that was used to get the next warrant as suggested but also it it gave the reassert assurance to the agent of his credibility and gave the agent a reason to go and then give him a tape recording equipment to go make voice recordings and things of that nature  her participation or with respect to the others although i'm pretty narrowly focused here if he had not been able if he had not conducted his warrantless search he would not been given the recording equipment and he would not have been allowed to further develop the case so i think that it's not just a matter of the material that was left but also the question of his recordings and his credibility and the information that was initially seized the parties in advance of trial then the motion just the press could have been done and should have been in order to determine whether any of that evidence would be a room and this is elgin's room in this is a shelton's office and that he not only had he had conducted the search by the ses documents from all of those places now the information that was turned over prior to trial did not provide that information it did not provide any times when this cooperating human source was supposedly was getting information it  cooperating human source head had provided information but they didn't he didn't say how it was taken where it was taken from whether it was taken from permission or not permission whether the f b i had directed him to do that warrant right that's correct your honor the problem that i'm i'm pointing out is that if there hadn't been a brady violation and we had known in advance of trial that the informant was used as an agent to do any illegal search we would have challenged it before trial and we would have had the opportunity to try and suppress the rest of the information that that did come in a trial but we were not able to do that because we didn't find out about what happened until we were image trial and once we were in the middle of the trial there was no opportunity other than to ask for a mistrial try to get the relief that we would have sought which was that all the rest of that evidence was not legitimately obtained because it was based on this illegal activity in the st instance so ms gambino i'm trying to desegregate what the defense would have known from receiving the discovery they knew that there was a search that documents were taken that's different that the f b i agent on the stand being cross examined and basically didn't know from the discovery that we received that there had been a search there were reports saying c h s gave x document to the f b i agent or c h s has this document that was originally located had given him the documents whether he was rightfully in possession of the documents or whether he had been directed to take the documents so we didn't know there was an actual search and we didn't know that the search that occurred was directed by the f b i because there was nothing in the original discovery to suggest that and of course i wouldn't have presumed that without some kind of report from the agent saying as we usually get three o two which outlines  the dates and the times and the circumstances under which certain documents will tell you this kind of information was not provided to us in advance of trial thank you so it was not at all clear that we had a disclosed pretrial as it should have been even though there were as he characterized the kernels of information that that were in freetown discovered so the fundamental problem with the court's decision because he recognizes all the crucial factors he recognizes that there was a warrantless search that he said directly that he cannot help but note the open ended scope of the informants evidence hunt on the defendants work he he found that agent holbrook directed his informant to conduct the warrantless and illegal search he found that the information collected was used to support the warrant for the legal search and that the information was not disclosed pretrial as it should have been law she did have a privacy right c was able to exclude people when she needed to work quietly her office was not a public space just as with the courts finding an o'connor versus or t where a doctor or to go worked in a state hospital and had an office desk and filing cabinets and there were many medical employees that came in and out of his office but that didn't take away from the fact that he did have a right to employer as opposed to the privacy right that someone for anyone has against law enforcement so none of the b evidence that was provided or taken would have been inevitably discovered or subject to any of the other limitations of the exquisite seclusion area rule for instance because it was garbage that started the investigation in the st place this was not a case in which the f b i was looking at the township office or the township trustee and till the informant presented himself and said i have this information are you are you interested in it went on from there so your honor i believe but i will reserve my time and think the court thank you is going to be you know which will move to you on behalf of the epically the government may please the court i don't know whether to say good morning or good afternoon i think we are right on the don't know that that's the end of the analysis because it is slightly more nuance given garbutt had the right to be there independent of what holbrooke would have done but what we're talking about a respects pick a show of privacy you know your hono defendant is presented no evidence of any steps you took to retain these documents as private and i do want to clear up one thing we're not dealing with documents from a file cabinet we're not dealing with documents from inside  the agent had a right to be where he was and aren't without a warrant that's correct you're on to tips to point out we're trying to make in terms that the preschool expectation of privacy as relates to carpet is that there's this relationship or garbage is there on a regular basis and he is fair in her office at times and she's not there and she knows this is just this is some situation where it just offended you know blocks her door she marks the documents confidential she puts them in the chest she does something anything to tr would say to that your honor is what the jennings court talked about just just because you become a government agent doesn't mean you're restricted in where you can go you know as when garbutt signs up as a governmental agent that doesn't mean he can't go into miss shelt office anymore he had to go in there he had to go in there every day to sign this time sheets if us or supervisor she testified she was required by the employee handbook to go in there and to make sure that her desk you know the point that we're trying to well if she's if she is her supervisor she contends then yes under the employee handbook he is allowed to go in there it's not as though he's exceeding his scope when he's in the office my point is just that this is part of his job as she's described it to be in her office and i mean i guess your honour's what the point that we're trying to make here is that it's her obligation to demonstrate that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the things on her desk and it's not hard to put something in a file cabinet to put it in neutral or to market confidential what garbage found on her desk was the stuff she's exposing to the public your honor it's i mean we can go back to the supreme court case where you're in a phone booth and you're talking there's nothing that prevents the government agent from standing right outside the phone booth and listening  right your honor which again takes it back to the fact that she accepted it no expectation of privacy this there isn't a one box expectation of privacy when we're talking about offices or places you work you know you can't just say yes it's an office and so you have an expectation of privacy and the supreme court has told us that in order to take up what this is is a factual inquiry as to whether the defendant has any x as exhibit an expectation of privacy and you know the only time that's referenced during the st part of the argument is state's defense says that miss shelton was able to exclude people when she wanted to work quietly and privately your honor if there's just no evidence of that there isn't any evidence that she could exclude people she did exclude people she shut her door she put things in the file cabinet she marked it confidential these are the simple steps she could have either done or testified to or somehow presented evidence that she did to keep these documents public or keep them private and you know if your daughter walks through your honour's chambers and you see something on top of your assistance desk i'm not sure that they do have an expectation of privacy to that but that's different because your hono is that a different path well you know and i guess it's a different cast even if this court does believe that the search was unconstitutional as judge over pointed out there is the independent source doctrine the independen solid in this case and if the alternate holding the district court found there is probable cause absence d references to things that garbage talk in the warrant and your honor i don't think it's ever been really disputed about the documents we provided to the court shorn of that evidence and so that's what the court found we think again if there's an unlawful search that that is the remedy is the evidence would still be admissible as judge for a very pointed out though that four dash five we presented the summaries that each one of the pieces of evidence that garbage gave to the f b i in this st presented to defense counsel and it says the information was discovered on desk that's enough right there for her to be able to bring discretion tree trial but you know your honour's another point on that is let's say even if this court agrees even if we did it cried every single fact that would have allowed her to make the suppression motion to suppression motion was litigated you know there was no prejudice here because the defense got to argue the point they did they got a judgment on the merits in the suppression motion and if the court had found that this was an illegal search then they would have gotten a new trial it's the same thing that would have happened had this happened pretrial right there would have been a suppression motion and if the court agreed we would raised your honor and i guess i had a little bit of a loss not at a loss i guess i don't quite understand the court's question where the good fa exception usually applies is when we have a warrant out there obviously was a warrant in this case but defense is attacking the information gathered prior to the warrant and so this isn't a case like leon bear able to say we i understand the argument that the bribery kickback component has been satisfied here as a result of what the employee was able to retain but i'm wondering whether or not th is somehow a round square peg going in a round hole here with regard to the fit between these facts in that particular crime alleged in consequence your honor just to be clear we're talking about the honest services fraud in the wire yes yeah so i guess if i understand your honest question correctly it's due to facts supports the crime alleged in the indictment correct yet your honor the state do there's evidence in this case that she's hired in th fall of two thousand and twelve she doesn't buy tickets the nd go around she hasn't bought the tickets now they start taking her access to the interior as she needs to do our job  away she still doesn't play the game she doesn't kick back and buy the tickets and she's told listen make it right and around the stage in september of two thousand and thirteen is when for dealing with the transcript  play and so what the defendant says is they think they do their jobs and that's it i've had someone told me that i do my job you know you look around your person getting laid off then they'll pay the ticket they're still here so they see that three months later a coconspirator fires misled and he lets everyone else know listen the reason she's fired she didn't buy the tickets so the employees understood that they had to pay to play they had to bribe their way to keep their from getting fired there are other examples of it your honor you know there's individuals who testified they were not promoted they believe because they refused to buy the tickets and hundreds of sufficiency of the evidence  was enough here for a reasonable juror to find that there was this conspiracy to force the employees to buy these tickets if they didn't want to be fired i don't care at a different question  continue to answer the question fine it just is not a back door skilling what this is this is a situation where it's a conspirator's are turning employees of township time into essentially their political workers and it's what the talks about in cali it's what this court talked about in paper papers to cases where the supervisor has his employees painting his house you know if weren't forcing these employees to be their political employees essentially doing all this political work they would have to go and pay someone else to do that they are stealing the employees time and forcing them to work on the political campaign now your honor in terms of whether or not circling back to the st part of your question whether or not jats employee who sits and reads a book has committed wire fraud  i think it would depend on whether or not that's a fraudulent representation when they submit their time sheets debts they have conducted only township work i think if you know she does it for two hours the employee it's probably not a material misrepresentation with the intent to defraud it's certainly not the ideal ploy what we have here though is we have the township say you were only to count ship work on township time when do you play sign there's pa nts there saying we have done only township work and that's not true because they were being forced to do all this political work including the campaign tickets including preparing materials for the fundraisers participate in fraud and as to the privacy issue she testified in volume age that her office was not open to the public the short answer to your honor's question about agent holbrooke is that he could not have done what garbage because he didn't have a warrant her office was on the rd floor of the building and it had doors to close and it was a recent she was a tree in the creek area for mary elgin so it wasn't the case that it was open to the public or that anybody wasn't invited or government business could just wander in and take things there is no good faith exception in this case because there was no warrant and that's that's the entirety of the problem and there is no independent source because the whole rest of the evidence depended upon what  illegally in the st place with respect to the honest the services here we have issues and not only because there's no deception involved but i think if you're going to go down the road of calling campaign contributions bribery and kickbacks our whole political system is going to be in trouble there was no evidence except for ms len chu had personal problems with stephen hunter than anybody else hate that didn't want to pay for it was fired because they didn't pay in fact the two longest term longest term employees who were testifying at trial said not only did they not pay but they kept their jobs and they were in fact holdovers from the previous administration so there wasn't a correlation between the firing the firings were happening because money was being cut and they had to