good morning everyone we have five cases for oral argument before the panel this morning and we will start with united states versus sox which is nineteen lot mr handsome are you you have frozen on our screens we may have to start over now he's not he's frozen so i don't know yeah can give him a call it looks like he jumped off he's probably going to try to reach  judge mathis and when he gets back on would you like me to restart it at sixteen yes place ok specific crime under investigation so the spot of the question here is simple did the warrant specify the crime under investigation the answer is simple as well did not the war doesn't mention any crime at all let alone the specific crime under investigation the warrant was no better than the general warns of war by the founding fathers plain terms authorized general search mr senses how in holding otherwise the discourse relied entirely on the supreme court's decision  language from the warrant in the opinion and that language clearly shows that the war included a specific crime under investigation immediately before the broad catch all phrase so the district courts analysis is just flawed and have the district mr has why can i just ask you if if we were permitted to consider the affidavit what the effort they say the warrant if obviously we don't think you can consider but if you could consider it we don't think it saves the warrant no because you know it's it talks about the crimes of a crime it also talks it also says that mr crime was judge actually signed the affidavit what why isn't that a substitute for an explicit cross reference between affidavit and the search warrant you look at the president this court considers that factor in the good faith analysis which i think necessarily means that the court does not consider that factor in the incorporation now because in these other cases i can tell you order i mean my understanding is the dischord just essentially relied on the officer's testimony that he generally brought it to the to the residence so i mean i don't know if that's enough i will tell you when you look at the face of agree with us that it was in particular and yes then good faith is squarely an issue ok and i mean i can and i can address that if there is somebody doesn't want me to go elsewhere i think  think what i want to say on good faith and i think this is important i feel like we're sort of the parties are sort of talking over each other we have cases the government has cases and the cases are they don't really mesh well there seem to be some comes back with with a series of cases and taro ricardi russian when you look at those cases they're not searches of the home russian involved searches of sounds and in that case the warrant actually said i think you might have been right because otero included non computer search related items and computer search related and the non computer related items were specific that part of war included the crime so with respect to good faith my ultimate point is that we have a line of precedent involving general search search warrants with language like ours where this court refused to apply the good faith exception and those are much more on point other step in terms of how that should be done good question i don't i don't i don't think you even need to get to an office or buy off for comparison in light of the general rule that if if for some reason you don't apply that rule and you want to look to each officer i mean the problem the government has is that these officers one testified she didn't even read them she didn't have the warrant she didn't look that makes me think of another question i had which is should we be maybe remaining this if we reach the good faith exception we don't have a determination from the district court here as i recall he  resolve before we could might be helpful to have the district court consider you know i don't know that i thought about that maybe maybe maybe that would be more prudent witness so i don't know how any you can even say that he looked at them or you looked at the affidavit the government could prove that it was true and even try and so i think when you when you look at good faith at the end of the day you need officers who in good faith rely on the war in the affidavit and you don't have that in a piece where the government did not introduce evidence of the officers doing just that and with now so you know i mean we we put that in a reply brief but if you if you wanted to address it at the end of the day i think you know our basic point is the same across all of these issues and this is a general war and  cut two responses to that st of all i'd refer the court to the opinion and selves cells was a case that was focused on several delany but as part of that it found a what might be called the catch all provision as valid that provision also did not identify the crime it said and the other related evidence of the crime the court held that that provision quote took on the characteristics of the other firearm related provisions of a vance specifically in this on the face of the warrant no it does not identify a crime i think the nd place that i would argue that the court can lock is of course the affidavit and i think that that five rd twelve o six also works to the knowledge of the executing officer in order to secure an ambiguity in the warrant i think all of those are situations where the warrants warrant terms leave some ambiguity as to what it means parties disputed what it meant and if the defendant was right about what it meant then the search was invalid if the government was right about what it meant then the search was valid and so the court to it to look at that for i would think simpson was a little executing officers and different courts interpretation of that term was objective within reason because the parties here essentially agree on the laws the particularities if this provision at issue did in fact authorize a search for any evidence of any crime then as in pasadena it would be invalid but if the provision authorize a search for evidence of a particular crime then as then several of these court cases including some of the ones that th interpretation but at a minimum it's not so unreasonable that any reasonable officer would have understood that it meant something else and was in fact the general warrant that the defendant's now arguing and why i would like to turn to we move into this good faith discussion i want to make sure that i understand how you're viewing the record relative to us or time check would you agree that the evidence shows that she didn't when the swat team entered the home and when she looked inside the s u v in the in the parking garage i think the facts as you just described them are correct but i think the point i want to make here is that although officer tomczyk was clearly there under the authority of the search warrant she wasn't there to search that there wasn't a reason for her to go in and what the details of what the warrant authorized the search for because she wasn't there to search well there you think that when she looked in the rear view window of the s u v that she conducted a search she wasn't she wasn't searching for evidence and that was i think in a report i'm not sure where it came from but what she was doing is she was working for people they were there because they believed it to be a highly dangerous situation and she was there to make sure that the officers who were coming to execute the search were going to be safe so even though even though she was no but what i'm saying is that there wasn't she was she was there assisting officer mentor in executing the search and she wasn't there to search for particular evidence yes as part of looking for people including the property on the property is that it's not a search that is a search it was a search done pursuant to the search warrant all i'm saying is that her failure to look at that search warrant doesn't suggest any lack of good faith because she wasn't there to search for six the people who were going to search for things came later and she was there to to make sure the property was face before they did that doesn't she report what she saw all she does report what they saw i think that the officers were immediately on her heels to conduct the search and certainly would have walked in that would have looked in that vehicle and so i think that there is certainly an inevitable discovery an independent source type arguments there but again i think on the good faith exception i don't think that we're looking at her review of the warner what she understood the warrant to mean because the people who were executing the search  left find that warrant invalid that you can say well she didn't have to look at the warrant even though she was only there because of warrants because she was just doing a protective sweep she had no obligation to review the warrant to make sure the protect sweep she was doing was justified i don't have specific authority on that point i think that i don't i haven't seen any right and that the best that i have although admittedly are not on point are the cases i cited talking about this there is there was no reasonable alternative interpretation of the word and so in those cases they don't say anything about the interpretation of a warrant there was no question in those cases that the warrant was a general warrant the difference in this case and and in the cases that i cited of christian otero in particular is that there is a reasonable interpretation of this warrant that would make it valid and in christie the court said that the question that the court said one could see how a reasonable reasonable officer could have interpreted the provision in a more narrow way and so that's the situation we have here in those cases making and cassady there was no other reasonable alternative interpretation and so there was no way for the officers to interpret it as anything other than a general war and in fact think that how good this relies on the make sure so this relies on your argument and we have to bite off on your arguments disagree with the interpretation as long as it thinks that interpretation is reasonable ok if this court thinks that my interpretation and the district court's interpretation is the jack to play on reasonable then i don't think i have a good faith i think my good faith argument little that particular provision was about evidence of the shooting that was under investigation and in that we don't know that without attachment a right right and that's why we're looking through again whether the officer could reasonably somehow there's a catch all provision and that's the end of the severability analysis that's not the way that this court has played it in the past and in fact this court severability doctrine actually arose out of a situation where there were over broad catch all provisions provision and shouldn't they what would otherwise be a lawful search and i think that self is relevant on that point to that a commonsense reading of the warrant would suggest to a reasonable officer that firearm and ammunition were the main subject