am qualified consent to search a phone includes copying data from the phone and subject it to a later forensic search revocation of consent can sometimes limit the agent's review of the evidence obtained via consent i gave us did not result or even limit his consent at any time the back of the agents gave the cell phone back to gager is no import a reasonable person having observed the cell right extract and what i understand that the agents retained a copy of that data and could review it at a later time agents to copy and maintain the evidence i phone data and we know that through a number of different ways firstly with verbal consent and the agent confirmed and documented the verbal consent and the consent form the consent forms say stated that mr gates decided to allow the i agents to contact complete search of the car the agents were authorized to take any letters papers materials or other property which they may desire to examine no no and explained exactly what the techie box was and mr davis didn't ask either he sat there he watched he knew that they were doing something to that presumably taking data off of it he never did s use and search days later he knew that well i think that i think a reasonable person would know that as well any time an agency's evidence of any type whether it be drug ledgers data from itself on a cell yourself on being hooked up by cables to another device that it was going to be searched that day to extract that from and the district court found that as well found it was reasonable for them to for the defendant to know that they were extracting data from it when the district court took issue with is that they would retain that data and they would search it later and that's actually the issue here on appeal is whether after they returned the cell phones to defend it and whether the agents could actually look at that data three days later and i would suggest that yes that was the proper way for them to look at it and it wasn't tempest in the sense that courts the circuit and other circuits that held for many decades that the agents are quote are authorized by me to take any letters papers materials or other property which they may desire to examine and so i we believe that that encompasses the data that they check the consent encompass the data that they took od and so they look at the say make a determination about that why wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that any search but i also by the time they th big they look at that and if they look at the information and then make a determination about well they actually didn't do a manual search of the phone so what happened is after that he gave consent for them to search it they hooked  be able to sit at that point no i don't believe so after the interview he left and i believe at that point he was but he voluntarily went he didn't object he until long afterwards and i have to to have been determined that he was not going to be able to sit with the children where that answer is they did not find the child pornography until three days later but i think that's though they had their stated purpose it's a like for child pornography we have to say that it doesn't matter in our determination that there were deception on the part also this and that reasonable person would have understood he was consenting to under the factual circumstances that existed and done that he gave the consent absolutely and i consent forms as a complete search and he sat there for an hour and watch so he after they found the i phone in the car the defendant consented to the search of the i phone and they wrote down the i phone on a consent form and the defendant provided the password to the i phones and that's how they were able to access it they sat down and they put at the kitchen table in full view of the defendant and they started searching the fams them after the search of the house is complete and they were ready to leave the premises agent you know and with the defendant and asked them to come down they can to the h s i had consent of cell phones and i asked both parties are in agreement as to what the standard is what would a objective typical person believe was the scope that was given and i think it's important to look at the surrounding circumstances and judge grace i'll point out some of the things that you did when we started out what what was asked for is i want to look through your samsung phone for evidence of child pornography so that you will be able to take your three year old son with you and it was a double root some part of it was a lie that goes right to the scope of the consent given and the agent was very candid and i commend him for that but what he testified to is i'm not going to tell somebody that we're going to hook it up to a cell by shane because they may not give me consent to do that so i'm going he didn't on the part of the government agent dealing with the scope of consent it has not been signed in form yes and i'm glad your honor asked that because i'm going to get to that next he signed a very antiquated  form that doesn't have anything to do with electronic media and talks about searching papers so i think you've got to take the form in the context of all the underlying facts when you're told i'm going to quote one through your phone and then  with the scope of the consensus search and sell them no but i think it latents guidance on how we look at the issue of cell phones and whether they're different than boxes condiment for example was a border search it's very well established that agents can search at the border i don't need reasonable suspicion they don't need anything yet the th circuit sitting on was carved out an exception requiring reasonable suspicion when you're talking about the contents of a laptop computer and they go into hallock and contain some bodies and higher winds and that we're there for going to require reasonable suspicion raly another will route an exception to the search for requirement was a search instant to other the cases have to do with the scope of the consent and serve and no your honor but i think they definitely bear guidance that the cell phones are treated differently to give an example there's a whole body of laws dealing with automobile searches they're treated differently stagecoaches technology matters supreme court has said that it's going to be really well in technology excuse me your honor you can hide you can hide incriminating evidence you really well on cell phone well that may be true but i don't think that changes the scope of consent and the constitutional law regarding cell phones and her hear the material for an extended period of time and so on how do you handle the fact that the district court does not really agree with the argument to american you know two things i think number one we prevailed on a motion to suppress this court finds any basis to support that then it can affirm the ruling i don't agree with that portion of judge miller's opinion that a forensic look it up to them she and i maybe we can speculate that i don't know that a typical reasonable person would believe we're also going to hook up the other machine on the other phone to the machine and i don't think that a typical reasonable person has any clue what this machine is and what d it does and that it takes deleted files all the information is a criminal defense attorney i was pretty shocked the st time i got discovery from sellable right shame this volumes involved binders  them reasonable to wait three days to examine the serial after all it's a box with your whole life in it sometimes it takes i think if you want to compare it to the search of a house you can decide you're going to go back into that house on another occasion  i don't think it's reasonable to assume that when they give you your phones back and they reason for the consent is dissipated that is he's not being given custody of this three year old brother the kind that the whole basis of it has dissipated a reasonable person wouldn't believe the government is going to retain that and definitely and search it at their leisure the consent and skim media hype contin is very close on point  and which the search words the search was reasonable but to see here i was hungry somewhat in the extent to be to the point that is extended to the term beyond a reasonable basis well i'm saying t circumstances to think government wouldn't be retaining their data and definitely and i don't believe the signing of an antiquated consent form dealing with the search and seizure papers changes anything correct and here i think a hypocrite reasonable person could believe that when i gave them consent to search my phone to look for child pornography so they could understand i could safely get consent that was given in this case and the reasons for that consent and i also think that the court needs to take into account the deception that was used regarding the scope of consent  judge miller merely found this troubling that i would contend is a lot more than troubling and i've cited some cases in my brief including the s c c dealing with the fact the government should be helpful higher standard they shouldn't be to lie to somebody about you know being able to go into their current sister being able to get and sent to do a search and people should be able to trust the government's representations to them so you have the general consent you have the you know it was the funds that were going to be search we all know that there is a tremendous amount of data on phones the idea that you're going to search the phone and you're going to search the day that the new you have a general consent form which is very broad and allow searching while it's true that the agent is not discuss specific like what that device what was going to do it's apparent from the conversations and what was going on in full view of the defendant that they were conducting a search of the phone and he read be investigating child pornography so while they weren't necessarily looking for child pornography be given for them that they were in for evidence of a crime and the defendant obviously knows what's on his son's and he consented anyway the search