them will possession of child pornography is a substance to go beyond reasonable in other words does it infringe on the liberty more than a very large collection and the district court seems to be and and your client says that he stabber actually touched a child however he does indicate that he has sexual gratification using his collection of pornography and the district court is concerned that if he not just that he has a direct view that if a lot of kids are walking by that this will be a trigger for him to i mean we only have his statement that he hasn't ever touched a child and there is no evidence presented on the other side that he doesn't have her contract so we have to take that as it is but the district court seems very concerned that if he gets to watch or if he sees a lot of children and walking home from school not if that that's going to be a trigger or something more dangerous to occur so why included law enforcement personnel and it comes right down to us about four years after just because a lot of this two thousand foot requirement the state law it looked at and said it's turned out if you're a really bad idea this is not only not serving the goals of to the district or say i know this isn't specifically prohibited but there is something about this location that aren't so i'm right though under the direct you condition he could live within one hundred feet of a school correct is  don't see it from the front from front door correct well i mean i think it wouldn't be odd because there's another condition that says he can't avoid are within one hundred feet but he can so under under your view he could live within a one hundred feet  school but i guess technically that can happen but again the the the solution to that problem is not to impose this really severe two thousand foot limitation necessary because of the differen matter if you impose something that says it's sort of like you know it's kind of like a get out of town by sundown you know or you know that you know where that we don't allow them to put conditions like that and if they said you know you can't live with than let's say you can't live within a mile of a school i think that makes this easier than two thousand feet you know all of those things so  prosecutors found it an expert to testify to say clearly that there is a relationship between people that use them look have been kind of collection of pornography and that that that offended that they not only used it asking for anything less but you're not asking for a one thousand feet or five hundred feet you're just here it's only direct you are nothing essentially well i think yes i mean i think that we think that ok thank you all right from the government place the least restrictive alternative the judge could have chose case what's the plausible basis that there that the court is considering there so the circumstances that were presented to the district court did evidence that mr dale is and has had a clear and significant  young boys between the ages of ten and fifteen years old and he admitted that he was attracted to the children that he saw on the places and those three factors combined as well with the fact that he knows that are described in the pre sentence  to remedy by removing any source of temptation but what is all right let's assume the practical consequences of this were not brought to the district court's attention correct they were not all right so hypothetically if the two thousand and seven restriction prevented mr dallas santas from residing in any urban part of los angeles county with that would be an appropriate restriction i think it would i think it would i guess it was the friday before that both parties got notice that the district court did not intend to limit itself to the stipulation of direct you i mean obviously going in to bat that the government then what's your view on that i mean should he be given an opportunity he said he couldn't put anything on about how limited it was because he only found out friday before the you know it wasn't enough time to to do that well i oral argument so i'm not i'm not speaking but let's just say hypothetically that the panel affirmed based on the arguments that you're making right now this mr dale is santos if as he  trying to find a place to live does he have a mechanism that he could bring this before the court and say i would like relief from this because i can't find a place to live i think he could he could speak a modification of the condition either to physically i mean one example that he's given in his family home which he said we likely wouldn't be able to live there of course there is a major development on that issue yet but if for example concerns that would make it on workable and and particularly if he brought to the district court's attention issues it would make that condition unworkable combined with factor showing that he was receiving well in the reality of treatment th and so i think he does have a mechanism for trying to reduce the burden of the condition if it turns out that the condition is so restrictive that mr deal of intimate cannot find housing as he's concerned about saying is based on test record the district court daybreak then and he didn't present anything that said that he can practically find a place to live he didn't ask for a continuance to have a herring or  didn't ask for far to have his family home exempted from that and so you're saying we should affirm and he relates he wants to think from that would be why when i weigh a modification if if those going posts condition the government have the burden to put the evidence in to support that position it's not our obligation to say that the two thousand foot condition was unreasonable it was their obligation to show that it was so