considerable amount of child pornography was six months earlier the national center senate chip a chip that a single image had been uploaded using a which was associated with a specific ip address the search warrant application doesn't tell the judge what tumbler is or how it works which i think is important it doesn't really say what a u r l is which may be of lesser consequence but it doesn't say that at the time the warrant was executed or contemporaneously that the the that all that's depicted as is a solitary incident six months previously there's not what the council what's your response or reply to our cases which indicate that cases are not all the same in terms of the evaluation of the passage of time on the effectiveness of a warrant and that in particular with respect to chop ona graphy it seems to have  a greater shelf life in terms of effectiveness because of the the tendency of of the perpetrators of that particular crime to hold onto the matters that they collect i  have two responses to that st that this court has not said that there's a blanket continuing a fence exception for child pornography offenses that could be satisfied by such boilerplate language in a search warrant application even if the affiant possesses the record requisite expertise that the time from the the about what he had in a lemon there the police searched the california guy and had nine thousand images in associated him with the the defendant had monitored the network and then lastly and s lee there was specific sheremet and peer to peer network access we don't have any of that in this case and judge  inference that from a detention hearing that the detectives simply got busy that that's not excuse under the illinois versus gate status it may be factor into the good faith equation but it's certainly not  it doesn't factor into the to a tally of the circumstances whether there was probable cause in june of eighteen to search based upon a solitary single hit back in november of  wire fraud a vet from a computer a sex trafficking a vent or a stolen property these all have a quality of continuing offenses and could you say in this particular case that one single controlled by six months earlier gets into a house six months later no or even a trash rip know in deep do you have the cases that indicate that rimando and an additional seven circuit case and and in rimando they found that there was in fact staleness and a lack of timely probable cause but ultimately it was saved by the good faith exception and i don't believe this case is saved by the good faith exception for the reasons i can articulate but if you look at the four corners of this particular war n it's just not there in the results obviously don't matter and they're extremely unfortunate and their demise in and troublesome but they just don't if it turns out they were right but there's nothing from the four corners of the warren that establishes probably cause approximately six months later and we don't we submit that i was thinking about this last night in spirit specifically mr chief justice if you stand back at a museum and look at an abstract page and you're told that it's a masterpiece you probably believe it but it may turn out it was it's a counterfeit or it was done by an elephant or a rd grader and if you drill down on this particular application paragraph by par there's nothing really there except for the boiler prayed assertions that there's collectors are perfect wrench will they keep the materials they don't get rid of on or they bury him into the computer but there's no specific facts to articulate that and i submit that in this particular case that the judicial officer simply was unable to perceive  perceive the obvious deficiencies when you drill down to this paragraph by peer or graph and that the judicial officers simply failed to contrast certainly in those circumstances no way would you say that the judicial officer was acting in and in a neutral capacity for issuing a warrant it just would it just wouldn't hold up so i'd between accessing an image and uploading an image that's relevant here i thought there were some question about that because the rimando case involved with a call accessing an image and i thought the suggestion was that when you you can somehow access an image without having it stay on your computer well we don't doesn't mean necessarily the isp knows took it from some medium such as his phone or d his computer and then sent it into the ether as it doesn't really we don't know that for certain if ok we just don't know that because you didn't tell the judge that's how tumblr works it may have been on his phone it may have been from his computer and he was on the internet that at one o'clock at night u t c time but we don't really know and i think that's a distinguishing feature but even if it's i mean how does one upload an image to a to a website without being on the internet me how does that i mean that does i mean that's not an upload necessarily implies  that then you're using some type of a device that has ability to access the internet and move data from your possession to the you know to its possession that's true but it doesn't mean the image directly downloading them into a preservation types type status and even if that that's a a fair inference that isn't many still he still got the image six months later there just wasn't anything to support that there's one warm line in the affidavit in the boilerplate language that says that these individuals may have erased or deleted files in their electronic media and that's it there's no an elaboration on that so i'd like to save a little bit of time i hope i answered your question judge bolton and  as well as its one hundred and twenty month prison sentence as opposing counsel that i'll spend my time today speaking about the motion to suppress in this case as the district court correctly concludes that probable cause existed to support the warrant in this case because the seven month old tip that opposing counsel discussing was not stale now the government is not requesting a blanket continuing defense exception in this case as opposing counsel said this is a to tally of the circumstances analysis however i would like to remind the court that in that analysis as the district court did here this court may take all reasonable inferences from the four corners of the affidavit it may also use its common sense in reviewing the af and i think doing those things here indicates as a district that the test was not stale the district coraline on this court's precedent and the affidavit said that two factors show here that the tip was not stay generally which came up in august for extended periods this court has also said in higher that that observation that those interested in child pornography who are deemed materials is supported by common sense and systems in their homes and maintained collections for extended periods now the nd factor the district court noted was that even if someone tries to delete or hide or conceal evidence of crime from their computer or if it's just a transien matter that comes through the computer it goes out the computer another door evidence related to those transactions proof of those busy images proof of that data may still exist again this court agrees with that the th circuit does as well and experts as judge benton's said in the morgan case computers quote leave traces behind when data is present on them seaver judge posner from the th circuit said that that should be common knowledge again common sense the data on your computer is going to be there i'd also like to add in the sponsor opposing counsel this morning he seems to be focusing on images and whether an image could still be present on the defendant's computer however it's not just images here that the affidavit was seeking the affidavit was seeking data records correspondence all of the things that underlie that image and that could still be located on the computer even if the defendant somehow uploaded this  matter without leaving any trace of it on his computer at least known to him the other thing i did want to comment on is is whether the upload here somehow would leave a trace or somehow just happened without any  evidence on his computer we know that the internet was used here tumblr employees received the image and saw the image and notify the national center for missing and exploited children so it's not as simple as between the defendant viewing and accessing child pornography on a web site the nd circuit opinion says that the defendant was on that web site for only seventeen seconds and in that time he had access to seventy six images but he and in that case the nd circuit said that the nine month gap rendered the warrants on top of that room on the actual acknowledges that other courts had held previously that quote subsequent redistribution in quote  in that case there was a seven month gap similar to the gap present here where between the execution of the warrant and the defendant distributed through images of child pornography distributed sixteen images total but three were child pornography in that case judge posner said that knowledge that the computer data can be retained even if it's been deleted or hidden or raised from the user's perspective evidence could still be on there and that should be common knowledge and he specifically said that evidence of three crimes should be present on the ice evidence of distribution of child pornography receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography again i think that the investigation may be contained in hidden files were deleted files or raised files and that to locate such data a special forensic software process is process may be used page seven and  d like to turn now briefly to his arguing about pressure of controlled buys something before you turn to that once the limiting principle on this continuing offense notion when when forensic experts to retrieve data that may even be deleted or put in your trash bin for use or layperson like me he says only in the exceptional case should a warrant to search a computer for child pornography be denied trafficking a computer in some ways it's sewage in there as it is a repository of data that is hard to destroy and get rid of and for that reason evidence of crimes contained on a computer opposing counsel also mentioned the case of wire fraud or a single instance of wire fraud again that's not the case in front of this court however i think the limiting principle here is you not only have a computer you also have this court's longstanding precedent the statement of the deputy in this case and the common sense knowledge that child pornographers retained their progress be for long periods of time  time as a general matter the cases do not distinguish between uploads and distributors or those that are possessing quantities in both chromic and hajek this court stated generally that child pornographers generally moreover and high end in s t this court rejected a similar argument and said that because the defendant is unable to show a difference in the habits between his situation in this case distributing or uploading images and those that are applies in this case the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future th amendment violations as a result in order to suppress evidence the suppression must yield wield a torrent value but in this case we simply don't have that and the heavy cost to the judicial system and society at large suppression in this case cannot justify suppression many of the same things i've already talked about the nature of the crimes involv the nature of computers and computer data supports this the conclusion that the officers reliance on the warrant was an objective good in addition opposing counsel mention that the warrant may be lacking some information about t r information regarding the ip address but the good faith exception is judge erickson said in augured may apply based on information reasonably known to the executing officer but not included in the warrant all of that information should still be in play for purposes of the good faith exception on top of all of that opposing counsel mentions that a statement that the deputy allegedly made it a detention hearing that he just got busy as the district court said it's not a question here regarding the good faith exception whether the officer should or shouldn't have worked the case sooner it's whether his reliance on the warrant was reasonable busy and in this case his reliance was reasonable first of all he completed the affidavit and perhaps it's not a masterpiece but the probable cause standard doesn't require massive it requires a fair probability of evidence being located in  place to be searched and we have that here we also have a situation here where it's not a situation where you're simply being told by somebody in a museum that you're looking at a masterpiece you've got the deputy himself who completed this affidavit you've got him then going to an assistant county prosecutor who signs off on the affidavit and at page ten of the addendum you can see that it says the attorney quote read and approve this application and request in quote for a search warrant court said and johnson and other courts have stated seeking the advice of an attorney before seeking a warrant is an appropriate factor to consider whether the officers conduct is objectively reasonable after obtaining the approval of the assistant county attorney the officer then went to the judge submitted the application and paid his approval so we have three individuals here two of which were not the officers who all d agreed that this warrants satisfies the probable cause standard  point out the following rimando specifically said that the inference of alleged proclivities of collectors is only as strong as the evidence that there actually was collecting and they listed a number of factors none of which apply here we don't have any website subscription or history of images sent other than won our history of trading other than one nor any ends and i i cited that my believe in that case it was upheld after a successful staleness challenge in the stillness was predicated on the fact that there just simply wasn't any new fresh event