yes can you see me all right mr hogan you may proceed when you're ready thank you your honor your honors the supreme court issued its opinion and reilly versus california in june of two thousand and fourteen eighteen months later a year and a half later detectives with the st charles county cyber crimes detective unit searched mr pos the self the appellant's phone without a warrant they searched the twice it was i didn't move to exclude all of the evidence i moved to exclude the evidence specifically taken from a cell phone without a warrant officers did get a warrant they got a warrant for his house seize electronic devices they did not get a warrant for his samsung black galaxy phone with a cracked screen using that specific language because the detectives in this case were specifically told by miss clay that her boyfriend harley pasta still has child pornography on a black samsung phone that has a cracked screen they knew that that was in the police report when they went to get a search warrant they never listed that phone in violation of reilly like i said this is eighteen months after that decision and your honor this was not this phone was not searched by a rookie patrolman or someone a traffic cop actually it was searched by detective boss in the judge noel collins a united states magistrate who heard my suppression hearing she states in her order in her report recommendation that the tech the boss of the st charles county cyber crimes task force has twenty years of law enforcement police training and he worked for eight years in the cyber crimes task force he has extensive training in forensic evidence and knowledgeable about digital investigations while that is the case if you can say you worked in it for eight years your knowledge of all europe expert in forensic evidence how is it possible that you're ignorant of a of a case of a supreme court case which impacts your daily job duties pornography is no longer delivered on videotapes through the mail  rude st started to read books it is on computers and it is on telephones and if you are a detective if you are a sergeant a tech that leading a task force in dealing with cyber crimes when is it necessary for you to  had no evidence no case law to dispute what i set judge collins in her report recommendation agrees with me and says several times that yes the fall was illegally searched but then they rely on in two thousand in one thousand i argue that salinger up case before this court before the th circuit and it was identical issues this time it was jefferson county they seized the phone and they refused to get a search warrant to get his phone and once again the magistrate said well the phone was searched illegally ah but the good faith exception applies now was even more that was i think twenty four months after the riley decision so i am i have two different clients johnson and uses he uses the good faith exception as the last refuge of the scoundrel and says all your honor here i am hat in hand begging for forgiveness for my misdeeds because i'm too lazy to know what the law is it would be like a homicide detective who refused to learn miranda and said well i just like talking to people and i'm good at talking to people let's not really my job it is his job this was the cyber crimes detect it is rare as a defense lawyer in cases in federal court where there's a clear violation of your client's rights it's hard to think of them but in this case impossible so they violated his rights they searched up point does it become on reasonable for an officer not to know the law that governs his daily job requirements when because this is eighteen months eighteen months ignoran law is not a defense well it is for police they can just keep saying good faith exception sooner or later the courts have to stop allowing lazy sloppy police wor only when the courts take a stance and exclude evidence based upon a officers and willingness to learn the law and please understand if this was the patrol wasn't didn't have training wasn't supervising others and searched without that i would understand that that could be more reasonable but in this case it's not my what isn't reasonable as their refusal to learn  when you look at the facts of the case i could understand why a police officer would say well i did ask for a search warrant for all this electronic of it is computers and things of that nature i understand that that's not a reasonable what is  reasonable is the officers refusal to know the law that governs their work it is it is it is comparable to a miranda decision for detectives when they're doing interviews because it would impact their daily jobs application of jail daily job duties and here that is the on reasonable part their refusal to learn to train and he said oh i went detective bosley testified and talked about all this training well how can you leave that part out i will reserve the rest of my time for to point out to the court this was not a warrantless search but this is not the same case as reilly evidence from the pellets samsung galaxy smartphone in this case should not be suppressed for two reasons  the smartphone was incompetent by the language in the warrant and secondly one forced me to believe that the search warrant they had for this or the home covered the smart phone and it was not an unreasonable believe based on the facts of the case the fact many computers and the supreme court went on to talk about how the modern day cell phone has immense storage capacity and has a lot of information on it just like a computer the district court road at the smartphone in this case was internet capable it was functionally equivalent to a computer and that the search warrant authorized to get a search of electronic data processing and storage devices digital cameras computers other memory storage devices all of which the district court recognize matched the characteristics of the appellate smartphone in this case the phone also as it was there just record even further pointed out that the phone had a camera on it and camera and digital camera was listed in the search warrant that a company detective bosley to the there's also some cases that have discussed that smartphones are functionally equivalent to a computer and can also be described as an electronic device or a storage device and sell it selling trout is just one of those cases that mr hogan just pointed out in that and sixteen the government cited in its original response the horton case and the district court also wrote about this in their order and horton a rd circuit case it was also child pornography case the search warrant only devices and a comprehensive search would not only include morton's computer but also any devices capable of storing or transmitting computer data secondly even if this court were to find that the words cell phone or smartphone should have been listed in that search warrant law samsung galaxy listed he even at the hearing detective bosley told the court that if the cell phone had not been covered by the warrant he would have gotten a nd point he also testified he went into the home looking for digital evidence of videos and images of child pornography and anything you know and a cell phone is digital additional storage device that contained in this case contain a lot of images and videos were stored on it a child pornography there was also testimony about how the stop this samsung smartphone is different than a regular slip phelim because it was internet capable and had it a lot of storage capacity and it was detected by a reset it was basically a computer so it wasn't a reasonable for law enforcement to rely on the warrant when they took their cell phone sense they weren't authorized computers electronic devices any and all electronic data and storage processing devices even the district court said there was a strong argument to be made that the smartphone is covered by the words digital camera or memory storage device in the warrant cells and if the district court thinks a strong argument to be made that there was a particular lies stood up then of course it was reasonable for law enforcement to rely on it when they seize the cell phone and search that there's no evidence of bad faith in this case there was no friends hearing and all the facts asked in this case point to that the officers were objectively reasonable and reliant on that search warrant to seize and search the smartphone and this was brought up earlier warrant was not as clear as a search warrant in this one and that case cell phone or smartphone were also particularly authorized in the search warrant however as i described earlier electronic device or electronic search advice flies in the court found that on that did not remove nor did it limit the good faith exception and it talks at length about modern day cell phones how they're really many computers and have immense storage capabilities can easily sir your ignorance of the law is not a defense well this is a police officer of twenty years eight years in the cyber crimes team leading a task force if he doesn't need to know what the law is concerning cyber crimes and electronic devices then whose responsibility is it who is going to do this and counsel for the government takes issue with riley the magistrate agree they agree to she's not a supreme court justice so her opinion of what the law the best they come up with as a rd circuit case i'd supreme court of the united states law and they're quoting the rd circuit in the th circuit doesn't happen often your honor usually it's the other way around so  case law on my side they rely once again on the good faith exception making excuses for bad police work for lazy police work they said it before i'll say it again this wasn't a patrolmen who was acting in good fa this is a supervisor of the cyber crimes task force who has a duty based upon his job know what the law is it would be a like a lawyer refusing to learn the law is similar to a detective sergeant refusing to learn the law what is boss of daily job duties eighteen months your honor so interrupt was twenty four months this is eighteen months i would like for the court to at least address when refusing to learn the law ceases to be a good faith exception and is just declared sloppy lazy police work thank you thank you