here this case merits a reversal because when normal illinois police department did what the supreme court has now recognized to be unconstitutional they conducted a warrantless g p s tracking search as the government's burden to show here but they're entitled to an exception to the exclusionary rule but the evidence and the record shows that there are no accident circumstances to excuse the police's failure to obtain a search warrant honor they may have been instructed regarding garcia but again it is the government's burden to show that the police officers here did in fact get such training they did were instructed  rule that it's all objective but your honor we're not asking the court to delve into the subjective mental states or the police or simply asking the court to look at what is in the record and what the government has shown what you say griffith exception is the latest in the string of good faith exceptions to the exclusionary rule and each of these exceptions show that police officers who are entitled to an exception police misconduct and police state havior so we're simply asking the court to look at whether the government has shown as it is their burden to show that the police have acted case the supreme court didn't look at the full circumstances surrounding that issue and in that case they didn't luck specifically at the police officers mental war what they believe they were doing and were not asking the court to do so here were simply asking a lookout what the evidence shows outside of the mental thoughts of the police officers did they act reasonably did the police department act reasonably or did the act recklessly and simply because that there happened to be certain circuit precedent at the time that allowed for warr twice a day doesn't mean that the the clock shouldn't be fixed and that's wh police and the police department acted reasonably now whether it was reasonable for them to simply believe that they did not need a warrant to conduct the g p s tracking but whether they acted reasonably in reaching that decision and they did not do so here they did nothing they didn't seek legal counsel they didn't there are no policies or now let me just read to the supreme court state i think it's holding in davis searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding  appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule that's the justices statement of their holding and it's got the word objectively in it you know how would we be going about looking at anything else well your honor that statement that you just read also has the word rely and yes objectively we determine what a reasonable police officer how a reasonable police officer would be behaving at the time by using object standards and not by doing some trip panning and searching inside their brains we are we're not asking you to search inside their brain or looking at outside evidence about whether or not they relied on nine there brown nor taylor is it was a situation here both in brown and in taylor the police officer did in fact rely on something that's facially valid in order to determine that a search warrant authority from the owner of the car to install the g p s device and they believe that that was they didn't go and look up whether that was enough and seventh or eighth circuit case law ma'am please the court is one my name is victoria and i represent the united states of america is undisputed in this case that in two thousand and ten when police officers attached g p s devices to the defendant's vehicle is that the court engage in a subjective analysis a subject of good faith analysis and that goes against all good faith analysis cases from the supreme court in the seventh circuit from leon to today your honor already  mentioned the two cases that r t dealt with this in this specific context g p s tracking united states versus browning united states versus taylor and this court stated in both of those cases it would be inappropriate to exclude evidence before that jones decision because reasonable officers could have relied on binding precedent to pre two thousand and twelve i think the case that is actually most responsive to counsel's argument is another good faith exception case that came down this summer which is united states versus gary and that is a that was a case regarding the search of a cell phone incident to arrest and in that case the defendant argued as as defendant argues here today that the government put forth no evidence to show that there was actual reliance on the old president or that the officers were even aware of that old precedent and what this court said quite simply was it does not matter because it doesn't matter what what the officers knew it matters what the officers did what is the conduct in question in gary it was a search of a cell phone incident to arrest that was permissible by precedent at the time in this case it is the w monitoring of the defendant's vehicle not so let me ask you this so davis suggests that when the police exhibit deliberate reckless or grossly negligent disregard for the fourth amendment that the exclusionary rule should apply because the purpose of the rule is to deter conduct but it also says because there is some tension here that when the police rely on binding circuit precedent there is no violation so what if we had a situation where one of the officer says you know i don't know if we can do this why don't we check with the state  anything if we had that kind of circumstance i'm just trying to see how far would go with that is it totally absolute or not i don't think it changes the analysis your honor and here's why when you when you start getting into the steps that led up to a certain decision you're getting into the subjective mindset of those officers the analysis should be strictly focused on what was the conduct of the investigative technique at issue in this case we're talking about warrantless g p s monitoring that was permissible at the time now if this court were to rule in favor of the of the defendant that then creates a rule that then has to be enforced at the disco yes i know what the circumstances are here i'm just talking about you would you ever envision a violation you know when there's been binding precedent it wouldn't matter what the police officers did they could do we just totally ignore everything they do because there is finding precedence it's always ok so there could never be a violation of the fourth amendment if there is binding precedent that is better allows that that officers behavior than it is permissible in the good faith exception does apply now carrying this out to even constitutional right of the defendant it's not a vehicle that at the defendant is entitled to use to redress an injury this is exclusivity must be a constitutional right of the defendant or it couldn't be applied to the states and the supreme court has applied it to the weeks against ever since no start map against ohio was weeks that applied it to the federal government and then map in one thousand sixty four that extended it to the states it doesn't rest on the constitution the supreme court has been flipping the bird to the law ever since nine hundred sixty four i understood your honor and but that doesn't change the analysis the if this court were to rule in favor of the friend and it creates a rule for the district courts where they are supposed to apply some degree of legal knowledge to individuals who investigated a specific case and that presents a host of problems based on how criminal investigations work there are often complex they're often collaborative this case is a perfect example you have at least three officers and agents who are involved just in this one particular issue of the g p s monitoring their detective ferguson the case agent there's the tech  cleveland he's an individual who who actually saw the devices and their special agent katie who analyzed the data so so let me go back to this cause let's look at the language because this is proof that when the police were using an objective lee reasonable good faith belief objective believe reasonable so i guess your position would be there would be no objectively reasonable situation when there's a binding precedent so is that what you're saying yes your honor if there is binding precedent then in officers act pursuant to that precedent and in reliance on that person in objective reliance on that precedent then that conduct  permissible and you have to look at the the actions but it's objective really reasonable so there could be certain circumstances where you look at it objectively it would be under reasonable and so the good faith belief not there might be a standard that isn't reasonable that certainly is not the case here that garcia precedent was the law of the land when in the seventh circuit when this investigation took place in two thousand and it remained so for two years following if the court starts to delve into the the subject of minds of the officers to determine what they did and did not know about the fourth amendment then you start getting into a situation where courts have to apply some some sort of formula or a stablish some degree of legal knowledge to a team of officers that's investigating a specific case and that's unworkable at the district court level and in fact it would lead to unjust results think of the situation where two identical crimes take place two identical investigations take place one of the team of officers are legal scholars in point every seven supreme court decision that justified each step of the investigation and the other the other team of officers could not the defendant's position would be when those cases go to trial the evidence is allowed in in one case and excluded in the other even though the facts are identical across the board it's an unworkable solution and it's an unworkable solution it flies in the face of seventh circuit and supreme court precedent and does not accomplish the stated goal of the hantz first of all he agrees that the court should look at what the officers did and it's very simple what the officers that here they didn't ask counsel they could have easily asked counsel of the police department what the fourth amendment rules were at the time they did not do that as a check at all with their headquarters they they did not check with anyone as far as weight as far as the record shows they checked with no one there there's no training the police department generally had no policies had no right rules had no regulations regarding force amendment requirements or g p s tracking and these these facts are objective facts it doesn't require the court to look into the mental state of the police officers and in fact education generally is an objective fact whether or not so i want to college whether or not someone took a certain class is an objective fact and my last point is that the good faith exception is meant what is a point is a good faith exception and so what what are we then to make of davis  times that the exclusionary rule is meant to deter placed on police departments to properly train their police officers and ensure that fourth amendment regularly and merit have to be adding to the supreme court's analysis to go in that direction and i thank you very much for your argument we appreciate your willingness and that of your law firm to accept the appointment in this case and your assistance to the court as well as your client the case is taken under five months and the court will be in recess