court for violation of the constitution so why isn't it equally clear here that this officer was trying to make sure that he didn't comply with the constitution and conducting the search of your client's apartment well at least one think you could have or put  passports and driving licenses with someone else's name on them i mean they were not searching for evidence of your client's commission of a crime they were trying to find additional evidence of the other  applies to determine whether or not if the correct information had been in the warrant the warrant would nevertheless have been issued but that's the question i'm asking you the correct information had been in your argument that the warrant would not have been was working for the phone company we're always working for life was an agency in fact well he seemed to have been working for both he was both working for the phone company and for law enforcement this isn't your usual drug dealer off the street who gives you some information this was if you looking for pigeon holes this was a citizen informant who stands on a higher footing then you then even your confidential reliable informant because the citizens word is ordinarily something one can rely on isn't it yes it is but in the sense that tipster that we're talking primary complaint is that you asked for a hearing in the trial court to try to establish that this officer had been reckless and added falsely false material information to the affidavit for search warrant that was turned down why do you say that this that these omissions that you're talking about were necessarily reckless as compared to just the kinds of things that happen in the transfer of information why they reckless their arrests just because they're within the knowledge of law enforcement agents officer at the time t search was an informal probation for burglary and one of the conditions one of the conditions was a search and seizure condition that essentially rose his fourth amendment rights was that relied on at all in this case to support the search and seizure i think it was almost a i sing on the cake it was added into the affidavit to do more to let the issuing judge know that that they could do it anyway but  in order to play it sort of was that was more of an atmospheric than a foundation for the search and seizure but that's my belief yes what about the assault on the warrant is overbroad how do you answer that first of all you think that's well it's an interesting issue because i look at the property that was supposedly allowed to be searched for and it's this is really a shotgun warrant i don't think i mean  limitations were placed on anybody in looking in that in that house checks credit cards access cards financial documents statements financial records securities payroll checks receipts rental agreements cockies payment record securit stocks bonds cash cancer's checks money orders mail phone books organizer cellular phone cellular phone bills on and on and on printers typewriters photocopy machine shredders check cashing cards they benefit cation cards bank account numbers well it was money oriented and fraud oriented which would also include fraudulent activities proceeds from fraudulent activities and then the third category would be evidence if i may let me begin where we kind of left off if you use the word overbroad in connection with the search warrants black letter law that a search warrant has to be maryland to to tie into what you're searching for but i can't find any place where you actually attacked ordered submitted but we'll get your decision as soon as we can we will call the second case gallagher which is castro versus fashion twenty one