appellant ryan thompson and the initial threshold issue in this case is whether the st two search warrants saw two of the issues that being for the green nissan maxima and the contemporaneous cell phone tracking warrants that were issued it's our position that there was not probable cause based on the four corners of those applications and that review that was conducted by a court judge and the reason is that a few things number one what's termed a concerned citizen was actually an informant this informant had a criminal record was on probation and his role was required to register as a sex offender but the applicant applicant that that make that known to the court nd there wasn't any specific information in the four corners of those applications that indicated that any of the alleged criminal activity by mr thompson was current there was no indication that there was ongoing information that there were trips being made to chicago to overload heroin or to reload for heroin there was no timing giving and when as to when the criminal conduct had occurred there was no timing given as to when mr thompson allegedly possessed any firearms and there was no it's best specific information regarding whether or not the information that was purportedly known to the concerned citizen or the informant was known by that concerns this and him or herself well whether that was rd party information that was then told to that concerned citizen that's referred to in the application so i think the four corners of those applications lack for probable cause the initial are in are by a magistrate and as did indicate that it was then i will concede of course that upon review of the application that there has to be a substantial basis for probable cause so it is a little bit of a watered down a ladder down application that the court will look at upon review but nonetheless i don't think there's probable cause there for these search warrants to issue and without that the rest of the case sort of falls behind that so we start with those st two applications before we get to this nd two applications we've got an issue because there was a traffic stop this concerned citizen that mr thompson is going to be going to chicago to pick up a load they track him there he's there for twenty minutes they bottle him back and they arrest him you know they say they pulled him over in minnesota on i ninety four they searched mr thompson and his vehicle they don't put this in this nd application but they find nothing not even marijuana no drugs no firearms nothing and the applicant omits that information when they apply for the nd set of search warrants this time for a silver nissan maxima and again for more g p s and other other phone information i was not a trial counsel at the time your honor but his previous lawyer did not they did not request to frank's hearing that it kind of turned into a little bit of a frank's hearing in my opinion as if you take a look at the transcript of their suppression hearing b no specifically of frank's motion was not filed and there is some discussion about that your honor in the in the our in our that there was not a frank's hearing applied for but i do think that's a material omission and whether or not that ought the officer in these search warrants in that particular situation and on the one end i'll concede of course that the officer had other information to rely upon than what was contained in the four corners of that application and the officer wanted to protect the informant and did not want to divulge that information on the other hand you officer knew full well that there was a traffic stop that was supposed to be hot on his tail coming back with a load from drugs and that bet showed nothing so the opposite or knew that there was nothing there and still the opposite or decided that they had good faith to to rely of these warrants and i don't know that that they had good faith at that point in time i also don't think the officer had good faith in the very beginning of it because he didn't have any information that there was any contemporary contemporaneous or odd going criminal activity there's nothing that he had that that suggested that it was current at that at the moment at least within the four corners again so i don't think that was of that there were some ongoing activity drug activity going on there was nothing i saw within the four corners of the application that said that the officer had information that there were  trips there is information in the four corners that says there were weekly trips being made but it doesn't say whether it was current or in the past and so i'm not sure that that was there we know that there was some tracking of mr thompson going down to chicago for example when they stopped them and there was marijuana that's referred to in that by the way that was three grams of marijuana that he was caught with the application doesn't say that was only three grams but it was only three grams of marijuana so the the applicant takes trouble the point that out of the court that there was an arrest and a vehicle feature for marijuana going down to chicago doesn't point to the court that there was a subsequent hot on his tail watching every movement coming back from chicago with a purported load from the day before and they find nothing and so i don't think they should be able to have it both ways and i think the court ought to have known about that at least by the nd set of honor i don't think the officer had a good faith basis to rely on the statute number one what he was really trying to do is make this an ongoing criminal investigation and use this information not per probable cause but frankly to help him develop probable cause for later and that was one of the weird things in this case is that there was an outdated form is the our in our head had referred to it where the officer used a form that was supposed to be only authority for an attorney for the government to apply to that but that wasn't done here here the officer lot of this g p s tracking information he had it under the guise of a trap and trace but really this was let's track him in real time and that should have been supported by probable cause for a thank you your honor and may it please the court my name is lindsey middle camp and i'm representing the united states in this appeal my colleague alan slaughter represented the united states in the just a court level in this matter as mr pointed out this appeal essentially addresses probable cause at actually six stages of an investigation but they really boil down to three dates there's the february th date when the initial vehicle tracker and cell phone tracking and register orders were issued then probable cause or substantial base as is whether or not there was a sufficient showing of facts that creates a fair probability that a crime will be found evidence of a crime will be found where it's being stopped and as the district court below noted whether it's tracking a phone or tracking a vehicle you're not looking for the drugs themselves in the follow on you're not necessarily looking for the drugs themselves in a vehicle when it comes to g p s tracking here or the investigation was into drug trying which by its nature involves movement and so tracking a vehicle to show that it is making these weekly trips to chicago or that is making short trips once returned from chicago consistent with drug distribution is that evidence sought similarly but it is not that the phone is going to happen it's g p s data evidence of the heroin or firearms alleged but rather the movements of the followings and the communication saat that go towards establishing drug trafficking and distribution i disagree with the defense's characterization and i think the record is clear that in fact the affianced getting these initial warrants on february th and again on april nd did show a contemporaneous or at least re activity to establish probable cause for that issue in court to run as judge struck scraggly asked he stated there are weekly trips and if the court looks at the motions exhibits for instance exhibit one from the district court weekly trips to an address in chicago illinois so i think it is a stretch to say that the absentee ballot could have been stale and especially when the issue in court is allowed substantial deference and is allowed to drop inferences by the phrasing here and so cause the good faith exception it would save the warrant nonetheless however that is a saving exception and it presupposes that this court would be making a decision and that this order on february th and then subsequently on april nd was lacking  probable cause to then raise the question of did the officer have a good say now the government would strongly suggest good faith would apply if that's what this court concludes however as the court noted or as judge struck you just noted  does both that although it wraps up and essentially grandfathers in language from the earlier form which the district court described as less than ideal it also found repeatedly probable cause that it didn't just do that by using the word probable cause but specifically in the context of the g p s tracker it acknowledges that probable cause is required for that piece of the order whereas that lower standard is the only amount required for the other forms of cell phone data  get that looks at the totality of the circumstances that were presented to the issuing judge and because this is not a particularly high bar and as the supreme court has noted it is not readily or even usefully reduced to a neat set of rules that's also hold true for how that you issuing judge phrases its conclusion if this court deferentially reads the courts the state courts order to say here's the information i've been presented by the affianced and based on that i find probable cause if it then includes additional standard language that goes to a lesser conclusion that doesn't give rise to this court finding that this neutral detached arbiter hadn't really done its job and had evaluated the proper standard it supporting the order did her key to explain what the basis of probable cause was it reaches that height and standard even if it could have been worded differently i note that in addition to the seemingly innocuous details that were part of the vehicle tracking and the cell phone tracking warrants the affianced here ops are longer and was also able to produce and explain based on his own experience extensive experience in law enforcement not products that asked the cellphone specifically the numbers that were provided by the concerned citizen and were registered to a false name and address that didn't exist and that based on ops and longer ins extensive experience that is a fact that is consistent with someone who is trying evade law enforcement or investigation as for whether or not the mistress you got has raised the concern that that nd application for a vehicle tracker and a cellphone tracker should have or was fa deficient because it did not include details of the arrest coming back from wisconsin he used the phrase having it both ways that in fact if the details of that arrest had been included the district court notes this is one of those rare unique cases where there was irrefutable evidence of the crime because it wouldn't have just said mr thompson was stopped on the way back from wisconsin it would have also included that the informant provided law enforcement with a sur recording in which mr thompson essentially said locking me the spector nasr had a quote on and that's why he wasn't able to steal the drugs in the consul and so i had all of that information been provided to the court there is no question it would have been less what unquote fan as the district court described these but the probable cause standard does not require that law enforcement provide every single detail to the issuing judge instead at this stage we asked were the details included enough until he actually i think it was that he met this person and provided it out that it's for our information for a why it is that they didn't testify that that's normally what he does because it seems to me maybe he's a concerned citizen when he st comes then but as soon as he starts asking or break on his probation and becomes that hey you get paid informant i think sometime in early march is it consistent that they would call not reach that distinction that he would generally in his practice call someone a concerned citizen to the engine parts of his getting something in return for the information that they're providing yes your honor i see that i'm out of time i did not go terminology so that's the court has any further questions in light of the fact that my time has elapsed the government asks that this court affirm the decision below and the denial of each of th singh i have some yes some time i do donna looks like i have about a minute and a half here and i'm ready to answer any questions i guess one thing that seems to me that was hanging out there is this issue about you know whether the ongoing  trap and trace and the firms was all there with the g p s on them and i think one of the things we need to know is that of course it was a pen register and a trap and trace so law enforcement when they get that they're getting all the logs coming in and all of the call logs going out as well as text messages and all of those things and despite any of that evidence they don't have anything else to corroborate that there was ongoing drug trafficking drug trafficking activity once they even have that intelligence with the blessing from the district court and so we have to look at that in terms of whether or not there is additional probable cause for the nd set of search warrants i think it keeps coming back to the four corners of this st search warrant application because all of the intelligence  basically for there it look as long as it least in terms of the court looking at that and then we have to come back to that because i i agree there are some problems in terms of arguing well wait a minute if we get into the you know five francs issue law enforcement had more information here that they didn't want to put up for fear of blowing the cover on the informant there but if we get back to the four corners of it i just don't know that there's enough there to say wait a minute we've got probable cause that there is an ongoing activity right now all we had is these traffic drugs before he is known to carry guns but not i saw him in his house with them not i saw him unload guns not i saw making a drug deal not not one forced and after there surveilling the property that there's foot traffic going in and out any of the other hallmarks of drug trafficking are not there in the four corners and if that st set of search warrants for the vehicle d and the electronic the phone fail i think everything behind that fails given the four