document that has been sealed pursuant to title three in making a licensing decision knowing that a concealed document that action constitutes intentional use and because the document remained under seal pursuant to title three use by an investigative or law enforcement officer or or governmental entity of information beyond the extent permitted by section two thousand five hundred and seventeen is a violation of his chapter for purposes of section tw  in the structure of the statute in criminal defendant would be entitled to the wiretaps communication what i think is would not be permitted would be for the criminal defendant or a sense attorney to disclose that information in violation of the orders to me that information i think that that to me is non controversial and that's what happened in this case and relying on that information after they've been disclosed pursuant to something that was an getting the wiretap information and doing whatever you want yeah i think the restriction if the if for instance the department of justice our f b i surreptitiously i mean we do we deal with inadvertent disclosure in discovery and all kinds of other situations just because something is privileged and gets disclosed doesn't mean it ceases to become pretty right if that's correct i'm not sure if i would characterize this information as privileged and that's just because the way the statute talks about privilege but i agree absolutely there's an expectation of privacy and so whether it's privilege or not may be  ran articles on the information that came out of that f b i affidavit that pat was out of the bag and once it's out there frankly i would have you know i would think it maybe governmental malpractise for the document there was no order saying that what was already out there can't be used at the top i think that prior restraint that's a separate issue but there was no limitation from the court on how that information could be use so i think so i think it's public at you know at the point it becomes public whether it gets resealed on the docket or not it's public and can be used by the public or or the government i don't think there is that there's a difference is there any limitation on th think at that point based on st amendment principles i would think the free press unless we're talking about matters of national security things like that the free press probably does have the right to run with the story do what they want with it  so i think for the most part it was the people of monitoring the pacer docket you know you can get the findings automatically i think that's how it came and how it actually got to the city i can't say for sure feehery here it was a part of a broader corruption investigation in the detroit area so the media had been watching it all pretty closely how long was the how long was the document on the docket before it was again i'm not sure i don't know the answer to that i don't think it was more than maybe twenty four hours but i don't i i don't remember how that played out it the reason i think it might have been awhile  if not the brightest through means authorized under the statute so i got a wiretap they can't just willy nilly share that with their colleagues they can only share it with a with another law enforcement officer and i something whether what happened in this case it was beyond the extent permitted by two thousand five hundred and seventeen i don't see where what happened here was permitted by two thousand five hundred and seventy it's not specifically wasn't just doesn't apply to any other circumstance i think you know if for instance this action doesn't talk about the use of  information that's already been disclosed in public or proceeding intentionally disclosed is allowed it doesn't talk about that there's other useful why if it doesn't talk about it why doesn't why doesn't your opponent when the other words i'm just saying with i'm looking at the text of the statute it says it's any use that's beyond the extent permitted which suggests to me that it had you have to look in two thousand five hundred and seventeen and find out where does it permit you to do what you did it's anything about inadvertent or intentional disclosure that then lie it are under seal but we know it's under seal still so i don't know how i guess i'm still struggling with why it's permitted it's not there's no directive that says you can do this because two thousand five hundred and twenty doesn't say it doesn't apply to any uses that are permitted or not permitted it simply information but she also when said mike gave it to the city or she disclosed it to the newspaper or somehow otherwise he's not an attorney for the government or a federal official or any of the people so waitress disclosed that the waitress could be liable i don't think so but i can't see how she would actually had any liable i don't know how you're not liable if the waitress liable i don't know why you're not like because i think the reason the waitress is a levels because she's not regulated by two thousand five hundred and seventeen because she didn't she might be a person she didn't get the information under the auspices of title three drugs i think seventeen that talks about privilege and it says no otherwise privileged information would lose its privilege i have a red flag but just to finish the sentence no other word no otherwise  your honour's ok regarding the public records defense this is not really the st time this court has encountered something that's become public record and the issue has risen i'd like to draw the court's attention to smoot versus united transport was asked to leave he actually filed those documents in his complaint and they were published by the media and so those communications same part of the public record the c s f then moved to strike the recordings and the transcripts were stricken and removed from the court record and this court held that the public records exception did not apply even though the record was publicly available for three months and was reported in media and that's because the court struck with transcripts from the record so we think that logic believe you know how long the documents how long it sat out there on base or was it twenty four hours or you know honestly i think that it was my best recollection and i'm not sure if this is correct but i think it was filed on friday evening and then it was resealed on monday morning so might have been in the public domain for three days but yet in this new case it was in the public domain for three months and of that just because it was in the public domain didn't mean that there couldn't be the th amendment you vision a project is not simply over and done with one unlawful intrusion had been affected rather the disclosure or use of information obtained through such an intrusion amounts to a separate injury to the victim of detroit essentially put her out of business based on nothing more than a sealed document that should have never been in the public domain in the st instance i think they got that information from the newspaper i mean that little very unorthodox but he raised a case that we hadn't briefed on this new case i would like the opportunity to address it