the court noted that that the defendant's case or the defendant's bonded been revoked because he failed to appear at a bond review hearing and that the magistrate had indicated that he was a flight risk which indicates a need for greater monitoring so i suppose this case presents the question of well what happens when you don't have a defendant who's a bit out of place where he defend miley i think those are related judge that i think because he had some violations a number of violations to be sure the judge indicated that she wanted to know where he was at all times and what he was system really doesn't address that issue any other words none of the violations now the things that he failed to do while he was being supervised involved being somewhere s monitoring wasn't going to address any problems that he had it in other words his offense underlying offense was possession of child pornography in his own h e his violations included basically either not leaving his home to find a job or to fulfill his treatment obligations or doing things in his home violated his conditions of supervision so under those circumstances there are plenty of other conditions of supervised release that address those matters he's he subject  the the crux of our argument is is that there is no requirement of any kind of reasonable suspicion that he's doing anything wrong he's going to be monitored at all times without any kind of super suspicion that he has now doing anything wrong and we believe that that is excessive he says there's any suggestion of this has become a standard condition of release or  the not i know it's not a standard condition on the form that you just know whether the court imposes this regularly or is it in this case especially because of some circumstance people are on supervision after conviction for a serious offense such as this have forfeited certain rights and we as the court have the rights to monitor their behavior i guess the question is at what point of the nature of the offense that he's committed some violations that will certainly become more prevalent than it is now how does it work well that's i was going to bring that up  there's at least in the cases i've been involved with there's a device that is you have to wear around your way you and it transmits information to somebody i johnson also is required to pay for this it's fairly expensive like can somebody in cedar rapids in the probation office go on a computer and say you know this man man that wears johnson and look it up if not directly at least given directly in other words i think it might be transmitted to some other place and then network in back to the probation officer cedar rapids that's that's my understanding so that essentially there is a twenty four hour warrant was suspicion a search of persons whereabouts that so then maybe i'm going too far with this but in theory if you if you could require a person to wear something around their leg twenty four hours a day then would be going too far to say implant the chip in their leg so it could better facilitate the monitoring of where they are  point is do these intrusions than in the restrictions become too too old and i think six it's the i think the court out of requires something more than what's shown in this case that a person is generally non compliant with supervision in order require twenty four hour around the clock g p s monitoring of earlier a person it please the court counsel this is a situation where a defendant has been given multiple opportunities to comply with the court requirements and to be truthful and comply with what the probation office asks of him and he has demonstrated he is unwilling to do that judge gruber as you pointed out the first violations that occurred in april of two thousand and twelve involved twenty one violations  everything from illegal drug use to failure to comply with sex abuse sex offender treatment to possession of an arguer fee and drug paraphernalia so it's a wide array of violations again this time in the not been out of place of assignment one thing that mr meyer said that may be slightly incorrect is he said that the defendant is doing things in his home that are violations the record doesn't necessarily demonstrate that while we have not caught him out of place of assignment for example he produced pornography adult her knocker for using photographic equipment that he was not supposed to have and we don't know where he did that that is one of the things that judge reed was concerned about she didn't know where he was doing some of the violations that he was caught with this current time you know where he got drunk or on drugs all that's not in the record either you honor there was a synthetic marijuana packaging both in a trash can in his apartment and then in a shared basement we do know that initially he admitted to the probation by excuse me probation officers that he was  with people he was prohibited against being with he was with people who were consuming drugs and then at the hearing he denied that and so he was untruthful with the court there we don't we don't know where he got them i obviously he's not subject to home detention so he was allowed to go out of his home to establishment sell things but not drugs or synthetic drugs can you answer my question was this was a standard  conditions when they become an issue in the case but it's this is certainly not the only case where judge reed has imposed that special condition but i can't answer the question as to whether it's imposed in every  thousand and twelve that judgment in a criminal case also had this condition and that it was numbered as number thirteen rather than fourteen but it was present we have no indication in the record that mr johnson was put on g p s tracking  when he was released from prison in february of two thousand and thirteen although it was a condition that was was allowed by the court at that time something mr mayor mentioned that where do we go you know when is it going here we are lesson would not necessarily your honor the court the district court obviously has to do a fact intensive inquiry in every case to determine what supervisors release conditions are appropriate and code thirty five eighty three d which says which conditions should be imposed in which conditions may be imposed referencing thirty five fifty three a that that statutory provision also says the court may impose other conditions as it sees necessary here this defendant has twice violated twice been revoked for violations multiple violations of his supervisor at least conditions and so the court went through  they examined each of those spoke with the defendant and he admitted most of the violations the judge found a couple additional violations regarding the drugs and drug paraphernalia and determined that the court needed to give the probation officer another tool to monitor this and a vigil as behavior because he is so unwilling to follow the court's requirements of what you said this was a conditional hosed on the original conviction it was imposed in two thousand and twelve he works i do your honor i know that it's not in the record but i know that the b i incorporated is a company that the probation office uses nationwide i don't know it was my understanding that they had local access the local probation officers have access to the information but i don't know that that's not on the record to know for sure was that role and whether it's a reasonable condition of probation office doesn't even have access to the information well it is relevant but it's my understanding that they do and there's nothing in the record to show that the local probation officer wouldn't have access to that  know really in the record at all oh no the other questions besides the issue of whether this condition is reasonably related to the thirty five fifty three a factors and whether it's a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary is the argument that it's a warrantless search and that it's a financial burden on the defendant we brief those but just briefly that they're warrantless search argument  i think is a nonstarter super it's well established in this country that probationers and supervised release sees have a diminished privacy interest the statute congress passed thirty five eighty three d specifically says that people on  supervised release can be subject to a search at any time specifically sex offenders and the fighting until burden argument i think one thing that certainly in play is that the district court can at any time modified the conditions of  aware of its ability to modify conditions of supervised release of any time if the court has no further questions