our next case for argument is united states against scott and please according to mr berry and his job again here on behalf mr scott the issue here is really whether probable cause that a person has a sexual interest in child children equals probable cause that they have a sexual interest in child pornography the only way that the police officers could get into my client's s d cards and all the store's devices is if that problem caused bridge was you will what is our standard of review but the center you know the district court is you know the standard of review is whether or not there is a reasonable basis to issue the search warrant in other words we're not supposed to be deciding probable cause on our own no  you have to persuade us that no reasonable person could think in light of the affidavit that there was probable cause that's the standard we announced in mcintyre and here there are three reasons why no one would think that there was probable cause first that statement has no proof attached to it no factual basis it's just mere statement by the officers second i worry about that a lot your brief confidently asserts the opposite and c the same amount of proof that is not the officer at least said based on my training and experience which you know sounds pretty hollow but your brief just asserts the opposite without even asserting training and experience are there facts about whether people who try to set up acid nations with under age kids also go in for child porn and this is the kind of thing for which there might be an empirical literature is there one there is not your honor of where i don't stand and you know there is none because you've searched or yes or yes we know that we're going to really helpful fact for us and so so we looked it up earlier now maybe there's been something since we argued the case in the district court i don't have that training experience what i do have is five circuit courts and i have five courts of this court's peers saying there is no link when you go from the second quote it's very then they have been sitting on that bench and only the best people are what is the basis to say this and the second reason that i would say no court should issue this or no one could believe that this would be a valid warrant is that so much of that evidence and so much of those paragraphs is linked to child sexual exploitation saying here you go we have this child pornography that's a child exploitation is in wisconsin and saying we have people of interest in child pornography they keep it they've insight to this court's decision seaver and so those facts affidavit is based upon a boilerplate that they're saying in this case just like it is in every other child pornography case i believe it will still be retained i believe that he'll keep that because he has an interest in children there being no reason for this court credit that which is the link being based upon old history to have you join an empirical study of your own you could go and find all similar affidavits in some court over some period and then look at the return on the search warrant and see how many of them actually follow return with child porn i will take that up and see if i can do that with my boss but i don't know if that empirical study of what happens in equal or what basis you're not giving us any statistical or studied the research that shows there is no connection and there's no nothing in the affidavit that says there is a if the lack of connection has been set up and five circuits spanning twenty states saying that's not good enough then he to be hard pressed to say in wisconsin you know what officer meyer in your six months on doing these types of cases based upon that training experience you're able to fill in what everybody else got wrong and what that the six are it's ok like there's nothing that says when you have probable cause for sexual abuse of a child that doesn't mean that you get to go in looking for child pornography that's what those cases whole and that's what the principle lives you have proof for one element of one crime and you can't then spin it towards a different there's no case and are not suppose the affidavit says based on my training and experience people who sell drugs illegal drugs go to their home usually have guns there it's a perfectly ordinary yesterday and warrant to search for guns i perfectly ordinary are you saying or all of those warrants are invalid because the officer says training and experience rather than introducing an empirical study i don't know you need him to stay there because the big the guns will be used to protect the drugs it would say you say you don't need an empirical study because you probably share the intuition for whether the intuition is running is itself an empirical question but the intuition itself is not something that was based upon the facts of this case here we have continuing going over the child exploitation he's going to take him to his house those facts were from other search warrants and then we allow them to be bled into this one and say now that becomes probably cost but to address your question precisely your honor is in the gun and drug case we would say we have all this court's case law that says guns and drugs always go together we would have a huge amount of experience we say guns and drugs but it would also be part of that crime that when we're looking originally not not experience we don't see the false negatives correct that is we don't see the cases where that kind of affidavit is written and the warrant is issued in the search was executed and the guns are not found you know order to figure out whether that claim is correct as a rule you need to see both of all positives and the polls negatives and where judges  negatives it's a big problem in thinking about this superiority but as are we but and i don't mean to beat the dead horse here but in these cases we have ten gentle evidence that we'd often say that's part of the search when you're always going to grab the ledgers you know in a drug case we're looking for the logics and we're looking for the bad news we're looking for the materials that would be there in that case that's all list that's all part  that crime but here we have what we're looking for is one crime and we're looking for something of a distinction we're looking for something a distinction that we're trying to make them into a different crime that broadens far beyond what the ordinary search would be if were only looking for the evidence of child sexual assault they can't go through every storage device of my clients they can't comb through the computer they can't seize everything there and hopefully stumble upon something and those are the limits that have to be imposed on the there are from my client so there are no further questions certainly coun the defendant argues that the only justification to search the storage media of mr scott's is if there is probable cause to believe that those storage media is would contain child pornography but that's not the only justification the defendant ignores the sample of things the affidavit certainly didn't describe the basis training and experience is just take it you know believe me you should believe me i'm a believable fellow and if that's all there was that may be more problematic covered here mr scott asked three different times during the two week period for pictures of the person he thought was a fourteen year old boy and his first question that boy is obviously not working out boy said no i don't want to because i'm really poor team the defendant responded by sending him a picture of an adult male in a yellow shirt naked from the waist down exposing his penis that same day he asked again for the kid to send a picture of himself in boxers naked from the waist up in response to engage in a sexual act at the very least there is probable cause to search the defendant's home for the images that the defendant sent that is of the adult male clothed with only clothing on the top to see if they could find those images once you can search for those images you can search the storage devices you can search the computers and you can search for other images of other fourteen year old boys or minors that the defendant may have been seeking out on craigslist because remember the other thing that's in this affidavit is the fact that an at least sixty two occasions in the four months preceding this meeting the defendant posted sexual ads seeking males under the age of twenty five would be interested in  father figure role playing with a a father of a friend or a teacher at least one of their own page and we got him talking with another undercover officer who he thought was fourteen there's probable cause to believe that he's got images of other kids kids who responded to those ads previously they don't have to be erotic images they don't need to be child pornography but they are evidence they're evidence of the defendant's child exploitation his his solicitation of minors to engage in sex and in fact the ads themselves support that notion because in each he asks for pictures he says he can ho again who uses a term father figure teacher and friend's dad so we know that he's looking for young males to engage in sex with them we know he's looking for pictures you can look for those pictures at the defendant's home the district court judge gave the  deference that he was supposed to be issuing judge he considered the totality of the circumstances and thought that look based on the defendant's statement that he talked to the kid on a computer and the fact that he was engaged in this sexual discussion and the sensitive nature of the pictures all pointed to the probability that at least some of this would be taking place in the defendant's home i think the phrase used in the defendant's brief to searching for a  we were in the cupboard where we are allowed to be and at that point there could be child pornography there and in this case there was i also think your honor if i recall correctly con contest with regard to the agent that there's that that if that's all there was it wouldn't be enough and you know the other cases that they cite the writers at all there was what if that's all there what i said what i'm sorry what was their argument that was the issue in those cases that is if this is the only thing that's not enough but in those cases the courts do recognize as this court does that wait a second it might be true but you've got to give us more than that i do recall in reichling there was a citation to anderson which is unpublished talking about a two thousand and twelve sentencing commission study that did find that there were images present more often than not in production cases but i don't recall that say i'm completely i'd be happy to submit something to the court if the court would like the bottom line here though is there is probable cause to search mr scott's home for the clothing he was wearing in the images the sex devices in the images the ads the chats the pictures and matches pictures of the defendants but the pictures of potential other victims once you're there you're in the spot you're allowed to be and there's nothing wrong with this war up in any event if this court finds that there wasn't probable cause certain are certainly all these things add up to  good faith in this case and the government respectfully request this court from the district court's order thank you for men casual encounters this wasn't targeting children the second point is every picture he asked for was what would be constitute a child erotica nothing of child pornography if it was we're not here but you can't blur the line  state sexually explicit it shows something it shows an interest grease spots very clear sexually explicit over here child pornography over there and never the twain shall meet because one is protected in one isn't and so long as he doesn't go over here then the search warrant doesn't issue and the third point is your honor that six months that agent meyer is for the training experience isn't enough it's not enough to sit just say if said except that i believe this there has to be more and that's what this case is stand just ask what why because merely asserting without a factual basis is not never a not well you can test it in that way there would be no avenue a franks hearing it's not not something that's knowingly false there wouldn't be a good opportunity for us to say can we cross examine agent mike and put him up here and we really want to get to the bottom of this and hear more upon that you know if we challenge if you look close pleadings we said we want to frank's hearing but if you're going to are argue or stand on he tried to bring him back to the house or the ip address it was a very sloppy search warrant and so we asked for it in that regard there is no avenue at least under the fourth circuit or the supreme court press in this court's precedent allows us to say hey we really want to just cross examine this guy short of trial if you want to make that precedent we would we would welcome it but we just ask you join the other five circuits and reverse thank you thank you