did not allege of she took any actions related to the scheme instead the affidavit at that showed that she knew ken izzie a with whom someone involved in the scheme plan to live and that she knew somebody else involved in the scheme that affidavit was so plainly lacking in probable cause that office could not reasonably rely on the war and as the government has not argued that the admission of the fruits of the illegality were harmless this court should reverse the suppression order vacate ms as a forced convictions and remand for a new trial although the affidavit contains a lot of detail about the romance scene it contains only three facts relating to ms as a for the first involves a connection to mr asea it is that he sent her five hundred dollars on june fifteenth of twenty fifteen and two hundred dollars on june twenty third of twenty fifteen riz no allegation that this was money from the romancing the affidavit says that there was an employment ski asea was conducting at that time but there's no evidence that it was even connected to that was there evidence in this affidavit that would have chronologically shown he received money and then she received money was there that kind of know and that's why it was lacking with regard to the employment remember the employment to get scam is not the internet romance scheme for that's the focus of the affidavit the mr is here receive the funds from that scam which involve the deposit of a check a counterfeit check withdrawal of the funds and the deposit to his account he received axis of those funds on june twenty second of twenty fifteen he had already transferred five hundred dollars to her a week earlier so there's no connection and the government didn't argue in the district court that there was even a connection to that employment scam all it said and all that agent said at the suppression hearing was that this was another link that this showed there was a connection between m scheme and the assertion that g p s data show that it was used during a two month period in close proximity to both mr aziz house and ms as you for his apartment affidavit contained no explanation of what was meant by that statement how often it was used what distance it was in what close proximity meant or anything of the cot and in fact those two houses are more than three miles apart if what the affidavit david met was that the phone was constantly used in or often used in close proximity to both residences a circle with a radius of one point five nine miles half of the distance between the two houses would cover almost eight square miles this is would link countless homes to the phone it doesn't add anything to what the affidavit has already show the third and final fact involved linda paul the affidavit said that newspoll was appeared to be a legitimate person with a legitimate address but anyway it it had a comma it would change the right meaning of that sentence but that's not what the affidavit said that's not what was presented to the match to the district judge who signed off on the affidavit on the on the warrant it's not even an argument the government's made the government just says the sentence shows that sentence grammatically read says the the aged check the database which resulted in no one from information leading him to believe that the address and name associate with missed calls i tunes account to be fictitious that is a statement that they are not fictitious there's no indication that they are fictitious paragraph when they say we investigated this person and we determined his addresses this his birth date is this his social security number is this it's doubt very differently is it legitimate for that the magistrate the neutral magistrate to look it look at the whole warrant affidavit and figure out that there's a common missing in this one no i think the the the judge has to look at what is actually written in that sentence if they want to write it in a way that said it appears to be fictitious it's easy enough to do that's not what they did what they did was say it does not real that no information order linda polling the whole thing together doesn't it shows that linda paul may have been in my client's apartment yes and couple that she made a money couple that with the money are several occasions well but first we have to look at what what her being in the apartment and certainty of course of course but and when we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything certainly not what but what if we look at what it means that she used her polgar used the wife i account of ms as a for all that shows is that she was in the apartment there are many reasons why somebody would use an internet connection or a y five to download something from i tunes to buy something from i tunes it could be a convenience of the limits of the data plan because you can explain other reasons or another possibility is that where we go when we're looking at an affidavit in support of a warrant you know but we also can't rely on hunch es an inference is what we have to do a speculation what we have to do is look at what this piece of evidence shows us and what this piece of evidence shows us is that mrs hall made a legitimate i tunes purchase with ms as you force internet connection it if we take that linda poll is a real person and then it's somebody it's a legitimate person being in this as your fourth apartment  knows linda paul that doesn't tell us anything and by the way we also don't know even if this poll is a fictitious person that that is any link to mitt as a four year olds or not being the purchase of flowers with the same with the same court to correct the debt the flowers sent to the to the scam pigeons the debit card was used to make purchases of flowers in connection with the skiing and i tunes purchased to ms p addressing court was you not the same card and we cleared that up in the reply brief we we had followed the assumption before there was same card in fact paragraph twenty five it i believe it is lists what was purchases made on that debit card it doesn't show that july first i tunes purchase what we have is the use of ms as you afford internet people use the available internet connection all the time when they have a  surf the internet to make purchases do all kinds of things it shows that linda paul was in ms as a force apartment it doesn't permit and if she made a legitimate non fraud related purchase that women the purchase for flowers was not what was made at her apartment through the internet connection that was itunes purchased the flowers came two months earlier or more and it was the connection there was a debit card used to buy those flowers was also used to buy something on i tunes to ms pols account that's why the government contends that the purchase the use of ms as a force internet to buy something f months later provides a connection but all it shows is that ms pole was in ms as a force apartment that shows mr ms as are four new ms pulp it shows but knowing somebody who is connected with criminal activity does not implicate the person knows that the one involved in criminal activity in that criminal activity that is a basic principle of forth and then the lawyers saying that making a non fraud related purchase through i tunes you know we have even if we say ok that's all true wouldn't that be enough to support a warrant you know that shows that ms ms as your four knows  is critical is only to buy something from i tunes that is a legitimate person purchase it's not fraud related there's nothing fraud related that is alleged to have occurred in ms as your force apartment the link here to to get a search warrant for her part would have to be that ms as you are for was herself involved in the criminal activity of ms paul so we  that somebody who was determined to be in the scheme was planning to live with him and that's what gives well and he was also involved in an employment scheme another fraud you write another fraudulent activity ok we've got but for him for his apartment the clearest link is that somebody involved in the scheme is going to be living at his apartment so when the district court says for the same reasons i found there was probable employment scam until june twenty second he transferred five hundred dollars to ms as a for a week before that and the government has on june twenty third correct but the governor has made no argument either here in the district court that ms as your four was somebody where somebody involved in criminal activity will be living and knowing association with people involved in criminal activity is not a basis for searching that person my house for you run out of time and i'd like it at least touch on this court has clearly held that we look at i mean the whole ianto determination is based on what's in the war in the affidavit the affidavit is so lacking then the officer can't rely on the warrant so we always assume that the repeated suggestion that none of these facts link mr edge of or to criminal activity but the purpose of the search warrant affidavit is not to within the by individuals linked to crimes charging something i in at on the internet address edge of our right your honor there's a couple of interested i'll begin specifically with that and that i'd like to add a little bit of context because as your honor pointed out there's more than just three facts there's three thanks in the context of the remainder of the affidavit but the defense puts a lot of emphasis on whether or not mr cole is a real person and in fact at page seven eight of the defendants reply brief she states that if poll is a real person and it precludes edge of force association with the card and we know that's not true it just means that mean is she exists and she's in the apartment the use of the car did not have any connection to the schemes that what he argued he argued that that particular use of the card did not have any connection to the scheme and that may be true but we know for certain that that card is a tool of the trade that was used in this fraud and the timing of the use of the card i suggest is more significant that one went away and tool of the trade you mean any debit card i just read that card in particular that a glaring member we already knew was used in this scale for example we know from paragraph ten of the search warrant affidavit that card was used to buy flowers  twice in march and twice in april most recently on april twenty seventh then the card is used to make the i tunes purchase just three days later so its association with the scam is pretty clearly the use again for what purpose on the thirtieth that was used for the i tunes purchase the most recent flour purchase predating that was on april twenty seventh and we know that this card was used in our scan because we know what victims flowers were bought for and those victims told the f b i i fell victim to the edward duffy scam which had facts about it that are so signature that we know that it couldn't be some unrelated scam i suggest at the end they need bints and connection the mr as a as house is also very critical especially in terms of timing we know that vinson and a person in april cummings that he had used as a money mule were very active throughout the spring and summer of scuse me two thousand and fifteen when we know in september he the united states and says he is going to is a is house two weeks later he opens this account it b b and t and two weeks after that he is now in possession of sixty thousand dollars of money belonging a person known to have been a victim of this can meanwhile at about the same time it is known that another tool of the trade that being the debit card that we have been discussing was associated with mist edge of force apartment so we have here's information that links the z or his house here's a permission that links edge of four or her apartment and then the flow of money between as accurately her apartment being a place where evidence of this in might be found becomes less and less about when it's the same can be said for the cellphone analysis i agree by itself it doesn't tell a lot but it does tell the review  magistrate that the rest of these facts are more likely to be true because the cell phone and balances help support it the cell phones you in the skin were used in close proximity to two address that we already think were associated with this in a close proximity three mile well that's that's what mr at pincus said in this brief i don't dispute that for a moment it's true that the affidavit doesn't give it a board a phone was used the phone used in this case and by women who knew the phone number was found in close proximity to two addresses and i realize that that fact alone doesn't necessarily add a lot and that's the reason we are cautioned to read these facts in their totality because sometimes the sum is greater than just the total of his parts and this is this is one of those those times i might remind the court two things two principles at issue is first the probable cause standard to begin with is not particularly high and on review this court's obligation is only to find out did the magistra for coming to the conclusion that the court did and i suggest reading this affidavit it in its entirety answers that question in the affirmative i mentioned also that even if we were to disagree about  whether or not this affidavit set for sufficient facts to establish probable cause there was still a great deal from which this court could conclude that the officers acted in that they the whole idea behind the exclusionary rule is to prevent police misconduct and here there was no misconduct agents did exactly what they were expected to do they spent thirty pages explaining this camp to a magistrate who gave them