v store in catch a candy plane of a laptop purchase being mistakenly built her visa i found the company did not contact mr cayman but instead called the police about fifty days after mr came and had acquired the laptop the police came knocking with a warrant to use the laptop to look for evidence of the crime of a fraudulent use of an access to mr cameron told the police the laptop was his and that there had to be a mix up he had ordered it and picked it up using his own name and he said he had used his own visa number when he called over the phone the police also know newer learned that the store never contacted mr cayman to tell him of a problem the credit card holder is another stablished customer at the same store and that mr cameron had in fact on occasion used his own visa number at the same store making purchases there the council yes and as i recall we don't have any ninth circuit l on personal property of scene by fraud is that correct i think that is true now i'm hooked tell rooms with a team by fraud i recall reading a recent decision by judge krause that said where the hotel room was obtained basically how even when there was a report of a credit card being stolen and that card having been used on line to purchase or make a reservation at a hotel operator occupied by m that what we're really doing here is deciding when the person should have a legitimate right of privacy that the court recognizes by requiring sort of for the sorcery and it seems kind three what happened in this case of course was that we had and this was conceived if you have an entry hearing was that the officer agreed that he hadn't asked for the authority to search the laptop just and so it was being held but then but then what happened ultimately was a warrantless search of the computers contacts what is the current law on briefcase searches whether it's ok for the police to take the briefcase but then they open it up and look through all the what what the court relied upon ultimately was the information that mr cayman had some other credit card numbers at his home and that he had used two of them at another local business but it was not shown that you have an x ray hearing that there was any connection between the use those numbers their it and i think in those we say that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy yes we do how would you distinguish this because in this case there was no what was what i think was conceived at the adventure hearing by the officer was that given that both individuals had been seen as a card holders and customers at that store is that it was possible that there had been a mix up so the question now is where there's there where there might have been a mixed up in the store took no action to either know or correct the problem or roof assess the item mr cameron was oblivious of of any problem with his possession of it furthermore you know if he he was it's not an item that w credit card number now is a credit card to buy and you know what was established at the evidentiary hearing was that he told the officers he had called them given his credit card number over the phone and it was established the evidence from hearing that both of them both a credit card and the owner surprise indicated that there must have been a mix up asserted that he had used his own visa credit card number and that was the information that officer rojas that i'd like to reserve a short time please the court counsel for the government let me see if i can help you out with your questions concerning what you're supposed to be doing or what you can do with this case because it's very clear from the research that we've provided to the court  that there is an issue about what one an officer is supposed to do when confronted with a situation where somebody says this is legally mine the officer has more than ample reasonable suspicion and probable cause to suspect that it's not in his teens from the line of cases especially the supreme court cases of ruckus and so that the supreme court states that one is not to look at the common law concerns about property rights when determining the legality of puts law enforcement in a difficult position whether it be an automobile search a search of a briefcase the search of her purse as somebody says that's legitimately mine i think nobody here is articulating that we should have a bright line rule as to what the proper standards should be but i think it should be done in a case by case basis when you have in this in this case i don't recall it expressed finding of fact there may be an implicit finding that i have party bought the bought the officer or haas had before he ever contacted mr cain that specific information that mr cayman had used three different credit card numbers that did not belong to him he used those credit card numbers to attempt to purchase company the third resulted in the purchase of his laptop that's the issue that we have here in this case so by the time the officer in this case came to the door he went to the judge and got a warrant he already had in his investigation three separate instances of the specific individual that he had already identified and other people had identified other officers in his department had informed him about this activity that this specific individual with perpetrating credit card fraud that's what his exactly what the information was on politics and we don't know exactly what the policeman had when he actually worked at the file he had it as to the laptop computer that was purchased that congress business and he actually went to the store interviewed the investigatory evidence additionally he received information from other officers in his department that a nickel i came in or a nickel i had attempted to purchase computers with these needs so we had information that directly linked him to come take a look this is a different circumstance were actually the officer had conducted an investigation to a significant extent and determined that there was a sufficient probable cause to get a search warrant so that's the difference the distinction between the cases that we have  and here none of the cases cited by either party nor in my research that conducted serious establish that courts the government law enforcement have to provide a judicial determination as to the specific property ownership i don't think the property ownership matters as if you said right at the open we're looking for is then i think it's very doubtful that he would be denied a reasonable expectation of privacy this case is sort of in the middle east when using the computer for about six weeks you've painted by fraud by force apparently but we he's done this to other times our position would be that erodes completely any real subjective expectation of privacy that he has had a bit of one circumstance which is why the facts are so critical in the overall perspective of course  in all probability of mean these receipts with the names of these individuals with those credit cards which the detective actually referenced as being one of the ones used in these transactions those things taking up together t he has no subjective expectation here because he knows it's stolen he knows he did it fraudulent only so that the case for the first prong that we're concerned about whether he does have a subjective expectation as to the other prong whether the expectation is one if he does have a subjective expectation that society would deem to be objective the reason looking for us is clearly no good if you had one that might be a different matter but we don't have the receipt here we've got provide one credit card number we've got three and we've got receipt i had a warrant to go do that which is based on a conclusion that there was credit card fraud going on here and that they would find information on that h right yes that was his primary motive throughout his entire investigation he testified to the courts that he suspected and he knew had information that mr cayman had been in trouble with the law in washington state that he had prior convictions for child pornography possession but his although none of that made it to the magistrate judge issuing the search warrant none of it he was concerned primarily with to any evidence especially card fraud that could have been taken over the internet for his training and experience he had heard information and been trained that individuals could obtain credit card numbers through the internet if you walked into mr team is room you saw that both computers the laptop and the desktop programs files photos of credit cards that could be obtained through a search through the internet that could be found in the computer he used a specific software program a computer crime forensic program called in ca home that is not in the record so what we're talking about is deliberate fraud with respect to the visa card number and that was not a critical factor stablished in the hearing therefore the government did not carry it burden now with respect of a search warrant so i think it's important to clarify that the the first search warrant was only to see the last laptop that's according to the applicant it was a search warrant he did not ask to search the laptop the second warrant was procedure of the gateway to the desktop basically an electronic media but once again that was a request to seize and not just search as to him for permission told them that they wanted to look at the laptop and could he have his permission or what the owner told officer rojas was that he didn't want it and we didn't want it returned to him with any contraband on it it's fair to read that record and read that statement and the characterization of their conversation in the historical context of the case which is during the execution of the first warrant officer rojas learned that mr  cayman had a history related to child pornography so it's fair to say i think obviously what what happened was that officer rojas calls up the owner and says we think this guy has child pornography on the laptop and the owner called consent search in the context that officer rojas gave out which was strictly as a look see for credit card numbers it was the look see for child pornography and that's apparent from the conversation reported by officer r