before the court i would like just to cut to the chase here the question is whether or not first of all there was two search warrants executed one on the what in the phone could serve it's our contention that that is a general warrant that therefore lacks probable cause i think what is curious about that issue is course by law enforcement d that it was just make boilerplate request for a search of the soap box that was subsequently of course signed by the court and executed by law enforcement and when they did that they bruce council can i ask you with what i think is not for us one aspect of the war and a big concern made was the ability to to seize all and search all electronic i think they both tail your honor and i was in articulate in my the march will want authorizes the search and seizure of any cell and then of course goes on to say that there can also be forensic analysis of all cell phones it's i think the though that language all comes underneath kind of the purview of overbroad and general not only was it not the in other words the on the search warrant said all telephones which in our in our view is general and it did not even identify particularly where they could go into with a cell phone or what cell phones they could take so i think it's all the same i kind of struggled with how i could articulate that to you folks this morning in the best that i could come up with is it all comes with under the purview of be overbroad in general and so that's how i would highwood characterize that of course  we rely on the griffith case i understand the magistrates as well as the court did not agree that that was necessarily help is on our side of the fence i respectfully disagree with that i think the holding is that if you have a search warrant that requests for any and all cellphones that is general in nature you have the last thing i want to say is this with regard to the april th warrants  the magistrate made reference to be independent director of independent source and i respectfully suggest that that is positive in this particular case because i believe that the only reason law and i believe that in the event that we actually included all the information that he had from one owner that law enforcement made i mean the magistrate may not even the authorized the search of th nevertheless it could well be that however i think the threat cold issue is it still does not particularize got cell phones they can look into so in other words it's still a general violations or for evidence of firearms and drugs it still comes within the purview of the overbroad so i don't think the entry in the mud search warrant that talks about firearms is dispositive because it's still over but nothing further if there's no further questions i appreciate your time all right mister jacobs thank you may please the court runners assistant united states attorney harry jacobs on behalf of the united states of america the warrant that authorized the search of egg or some cell phone was valid because it was based on adequate probable cause in addition officers acted absolutely your honor with respect to whether or not the april th warrant matters i tie that back to whether or not the affiant made a deliberate or reckless or false or misleading statement in testimony in support of the warrant and i and i would say did it your honor the question is whether officers at the time they obtained and executed the st warrant in march reasonably pursuing that warrant to be valid that they later  time he swore out testimony in support of that st warrant and executed that st warrant and that's a question with respect to good good faith i would submit your honor thank you and your honors i'm happy to address good faith certainly in a minute i would submit to the court that there was probable cause for the cell phone search warrant not relying on good faith for three reasons importantly each of these three reasons provides independent basis for probable phone and drug dealing activity and rd regardless of probable cause connecting the cell phone to illegal activity cell phones in this case could contain items listed in the search warrant that were clearly supported by probable cause an necessarily absolutely your honor and i agree with you that that's certainly me as to the question of good faith and what was known to the officer at that time with respect to your question specifically as to probable cause you're on earth right affidavit testimony did not specifically mention the role of cell phones to these drug transactions however there was testimony that more broadly referred to communications the testimony said that  reached out to the confidential informant testimony said that the confidential informant made contact with a group i think it's reasonable that the magistrate inferred from this testimony that was included for the march search warrant affidavit that there was in fact cell phone cell phone communication you know i point your honour's to the oft quoted language from riley if you california cell phones are now such a pervasive and instant part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy and indeed the report recommendation even echoed that language and sentiment and noted that because of the modern ubiquity of cell phones as a primary means of communication for most people it was not unreasonable for the issuing judge to make that inference more importantly your honour's regardless of whether there was specific probable cause connecting the cell phone to illegal activity the cell phone could contain items listed in the search warrant for which were clearly supported by probable cause i don't think it's in dispute that there was probable cause as to drug dealing activity that there was probable cause as to possession of a firearm this court has held that a cell phone may be searched when it may contain other items listed in a search warrant united states began bow for thirty nine f a rd at eight o seven a more recent decision by this court in united states v oliver found that cell phones could contain other items specifically mentioned in a search warrant and therefore the search of the cell phone was proper in this case cell phones here could have contained could have contained information that was specifically authorized by the warrant such as records of transactions or what your honour's mentioned before items tending to show possession of firearms because the cellphones could contain this type of information that was expressly authorized by the search warrant that provided probable cause to search cell phones regardless of whether or not there were facts related to the use of cell phones for any particular drug transaction in references united states v griffith however i'd submit to your honor's that that does not support mister egerton's argument that the search warrant was overbroad in particular the griffith case was relying on the fact that there were multiple indicators specific to that case that showed that the defendant was unlikely to own a cell phone including that he was just released from confinement and that his coconspirator did not use or or own a cell these indicators are not present in this case and indeed as i mentioned previously your honour's and there were there was testimony clued in the search warrant affidavit that that m reasonable inference that mister anderson may have used a cell phone that the confidential informant made contact that mister anderson reached out these are phrases that in the totality of the circumstances lead to a reasonable inference that a cell phone was used in light of riley view california the ubiquity of cell phones this is how people communicate in this day and age and it's a reasonable inference that a cell phone was used how can i ask you about that particular little i don't know that arise level of so faithfully deficient that a reasonable officer would know it was you know it was sort of a so by could you address particularities because that's my major concern with this particular warrant your hon i i understand the concern there and i understand but with respect to the particularities requirement i start by noting that particularities is a standard of practical accuracy rather than a hyper technical analysis and i think that's important thing to keep in mind particularly in the context of this case a fast moving drug investigation law enforcement could not have known at the time they were seeking a search warrant the person form that the evidence in this case would take the evidence that they had probable cause to seize could have been stored anywhere on a cellphone or other types of electronic devices as mentioned previously with respect to  cause if there is probable cause to search for an item such as a ledger or record of communication or an item tending to show possession of a firearm and there's probable cause to search in places where that might be found and  found it's unlikely potentially that a kid's tablet contains information outlined in the search warrant but it's certainly possible it has the technological capability to hold that information and wall in normal circumstances you or i may not think that someone would elicit information on a kid's tablet that may in fact be a reason to hide information on that tablet and that's precisely why the particularities requirement is one of practical accuracy and not  hyper technical grounded in the real world constraints of this investigation the fast moving drug investigation a search warrant the search warrant here was as particular as the circumstances allowed  limitation on what may be found and look back i absolutely do your honor i think that those are the guiding terms in turkey in terms of how this warrant should be interpreted the remainder of the warrantless certain places to be searched as you say some of those places are particularly broad places where information relating to firearms relating to narcotics and drug distribution would be found for example the warrant  allows for the search of a person on the property certainly that's not a search for anything relating to the person or anything on the person it's allowing in authorizing a search for items relating to drug trafficking possession of a firearm previously mentioned evidence in the record reflect that the asking new additional information not included in the testimony in support of the warrant regarding the use of the specific eggers and cell phone to set up the drug buys in particular that search warrant which is included in the government's agenda stated that the confidential informant used a cell phone to make contact with edgar's and for the nd controlled by in determining the presence of good faith reliance on a search warrant the court must consider the totality of the circumstances including information that was not presented to the court but was known to the officer at the time and based on the total who tally of the circumstances the officer acted in good faith in addition the testimony in support of the warrant was not so lacking in probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable for the reasons we mentioned earlier i mean as the report in recommendation and district court concluded there may have actually been an adequate articulation of probable cause despite the certain imperfections with the search warrant and therefore law enforcement's belief in the same cannot be said to be entirely unreasonable in addition as i addressed at the outset i do not believe that the fact that officers sought and obtained a subsequent search warrant makes any statements in the original search warrant false or misleading the question as i said previously is what was in the officers head and how he acted at the time he obtained and executed the original search warrant in addition there's no evidence that the warrant w facially deficient and there's no evidence or argument that the issuing judge didn't wholly abandoned is judicial role or failed to act in a neutral manner for these reasons even if the court concludes that the that there was not sufficient probable cause in support of the warrant i submit that the warrant is still valid based on the good faith exception your honour's have no further questions i would see the rest of my time very good thank you mister jacobs and mister corona you have almost a little under four minutes i will try to be very brief  this done these arguments a person much wiser than me has always said never say anything that doesn't acknowledge the silence but i'd like to preach that problem just the chin one or two things i think with all for any cell for any electronic device and with particularly it doesn't talk about whether where they need to serve a search warrant and where they need to search the cell phone where they might find evidence i