i will begin and probably limit honest their questions limit my arguments this morning to address what i think is of the meteor of the two issues my issues in this case are whether or not there was probable cause in the warran secondly whether in one of two regards the warrant was overbroad and i have i suggest to the court that there were two areas in which was overbroad the first is that the the list of items to be sought is so extensive and so far beyond the the factual basis eked out in de lay witness reporters information that even the experience as recited doing to prepare graphs of the officer cannot enlarge it to that level and the second challenge is whether or not the premises to be searched seem to be limited to the extent they should be of the fourth amendment other two kinds of overbroad or general warrants there's the kind that says ok you may look for evidence of all crimes we know that is a de facto invalid but this one is in a different situation and it is a situation where the officers have have put some of their experience in the record not saying much more be on what they claim to know and then taken for statements from a deep late witness who reports seeing what appears to be a tape camera behind event as she was using the toilet in the residence we're not going to talk first about  your your list point you know that he owed tapes camera hardware film video yes you're looking at all of that they they all but actually strikes me as a very defined list they all are devices  on which anything captured by that camera could be recorded now the pornographic materials it seems to me is not that but it is something i mean you've got to admit you if you're trying to if you're trying to protect the security of your house putting a camera in the bathroom focused on the toilet isn't what he would do so if it seems to me at the probable cause level which is certainly not propounder answer beyond a reasonable doubt this is a fairly targeted warrant i would agree with what you just said in regard to both of the items in the lives that would appear to be as it were collateral police or the county and i would also agree that that security surveillance may not necessarily be optimally placed in a restaurant and of a house or even welds in any even if it's your own house perhaps it is because i perhaps it could be a point of entry i won't belabor the point but what i will say is that there are other things in this list because because i understand the comment there are other things in the list that that go well be wrecked records that they need that if they're going to see if this camera in the bathroom has captured images that are now on the storage devices they might need manuals related to this computer sometimes people have software that encrypts or software that otherwise would defeat efforts to search i mean it's not like they they said oh and by the way let's look for heroin too you know if this is about what you would get from the camera but if you go a little further they've also asked for to look for anything relating to text messages internet chat e mail web camera images the last one i understand makes sense but it seems as if the athlete has taken that part of  his background it relates more to child enticement and not to the crime specifically listed in the warrant and has gone beyond that i think that some of these things go beyond teenagers to evers to chance they go a four step and i think that's that's too far and i do believe as well that dumb as a practical matter when a warrant does go too far then we get in the line drawn if there are things in this warrant that were not supported by probable cause i would respectfully suggest to the court that that a warrant that is overbroad or allows what i would say rummaging is not saved by a good faith exception case law and that is is not particularly clear in this circuit and others i also want to point out that the house how were you to make a dent in that whole thing without discussion idea was my understanding that the magistrate holding adopted by the judge was that the probable cause to flatten was normal less salvage by the way on dr i don't want so you have to address that because if we agreed with every word you've said just now about overbred about probable cause the fact remains that the first search took place under the authority of the warrant that was issued by the state judge the police thought that you know they had a warrant and so you'd have to look at the things that leon talks about to say you know well it's just so far afield that they must have lost their minds or did the judge so far depart from the ordinary whatever it is that phrases you know course of judicial argument and this argument is not in your brief it's been forfeited i would ask for the opportunity to submit a supplemental argument in writing on that if the court feels i forfeit because it was neither mind general my desire to do that  we'll see about that i will also just briefly touch upon the problem on the areas to be searched the warrant specifically says premises residential premises but describes vehicles and outbuildings and says are several  don't the question yeah i mean the government did argue leon and the government has certainly also said that the evidence from this witness of the red light in the black duc taped up camera were enough to provide probable cause well that combined with the officer's experience and the defendant's prior convictions of a prior conviction all yes or no i wasn't sure the prior conviction moved the ball too far but the fact that the red light is on it seems to me would allow one to think that perhaps information was being picked up by the camera and delivered somewhere and that would get you to the storage devices perhaps it would get you pornographic material as well since it's an odd place to be recording people off so that is an argument that we made or i believe it's true in order for to her to have even seen the camera the right that life had to be be live without making a recording of it somehow there are two different statutes in the wisconsin statutes so surveilling would just be a picture that was being transmitted somewhere else in the house to a computer so somebody could see in real time that it wasn't saved or earth probably more likely like the people's statutes in tanning beds it was a big thing for awhile that people were watching people change clothes and hand you beds and not recording it  cause with regard to what they were searching for as accord indicated certainly having a light on would seem to indicate there was some sort of recording going from going on that would lead a reasonable person especially an officer with this type of experience to think that evidence could be found on any sort of electronic device and that's what they searched for that is what the warrant allowed in that wasn't overly broad it didn't it didn't give them a license to go rummaging through the house for random things a look what we found here they knew exactly what they were looking for and a thumb drive could be anywhere it don't you know i would want to go on this being a limited in terms of what they could look at it seems to me they could look likely any place in the house and fine a little bit on dr sure absolutely and that's the nature of computer crimes you know they if that were what they were looking for long guns obviously they couldn't open up a small box or something like that but when you are looking for them drives yes the issue is they knew exactly what they were looking for and so they can look for those things in any any place and then they took that information went back and got the second one right her act and they did find the assaults on the first warrant the second or at then they went back and looked for things that they saw in the first one a blanket medications the child appeared to be drugged things like that but the actual from sexual  were found on in the first warner or that recordings of them with regard i just want to i just touched on it a moment ago looking any place where the other dence could be found while it was argued and briefed below i don't believe that it was argued before this court in the defendant's brief about the areas that could be searched the outbuildings the vehicles those types of things should the court have concerns about that i would request the opportunity to brief that because it is as i indicated i just went through the brief again to this court and did not see that particular issue there it was our position below the magistrate did rule on it that with those types of movable items that if the officers did could look anywhere they could look into rogers they could look in vehicles well the warrant says the outbuildings etc are all unless further order of the court comes which i don't anticipate you can assume no unless the court has any other questions i would simply request the court affirmed the defendant's conviction all right thank you very much and i think further