jump to the government's argument that it doesn't matter because the good faith exception applies we think we say does not because in fact scanners impostors and printers and other equipment for making a clone in credit cards and the warrant authorized to search for all of those things but in fact no scanners no imposters no printers none of that was actually found and this would suggest casts doubt on the claim that the informant actually saw those things we'd still only for credit cards and computers and a computer which was what they found there so he gave the impression that that the the informant's information had been corr computer that they didn't find all these other things that supposedly had to do with the manufacturing of fabricating of fraudulent credit cards and so to go back  conclusory statements the the informant reportedly stated that he had taken mr google body to visit just wife in jail after she had been arrested for  a crime involving front for having a fraudulent credit card or trying to use one and then the informant according to the affidavit said mr hu a body it was quote involved in the fraudulent credit card activities but it doesn't say how he knew that it doesn't say he observed him gauging in private who have credit card activity he does it say that he saw the he didn't say he observed he did it there's no indication of what he observed although all he said he did was transported equipment but again how did he know it was something he was told was there a confession or or is  that's correct your honor so and then he drove him back to an apartment and observed him in an apartment with equipment consistent with that and then he helped him move those things to another room well st of all we don't the timing is also unstated in the affidavit there's nothing that really indicates when the observations were made relatives all right but the order is what's really relevant it takes him to the jail after the wife is arrested turns into a hotel and then that equipment is moved to a different hotel but but what's missing is a connection other than visiting his wife in jail there's nothing that  sh the basis for that arrest but in any event there's nothing that really allows you to to say what what what the informant understood and the informant also made a reference to mr rich who about his reputation and that he was giving their native country probable cause which requires booking it how does he know what he says he knows and what basis we have for believing that we can rely on this information and then the nd one  is no explanation of how he would know that it was he a participant in the crime did mr hu about you tell him the kind of things that a court would look to say i'm not from a different counties police department that those were fraudulent credit cards there's no there's nothing explaining what what exactly we're told and what investigation morning your honour's may please the court my name is tiffany lee and i represent the united states the issue before your honor's is whether or not the district court eric when the night mr ghobadi is motion to suppress primarily and whether the courts below erred in determining that there were there was sufficient probable cause to support the search warrants on the were two search warrants in question here are the winds to broom applied and against the standard mr quote body as arguments fail st there is probable cause let's start with the st warrant if you look at the totality of the circumstances there was a named individual who provided st hand information with respect to his involvement in terms of as a taxi driver driving mr cole by a to visit his wife let's look at the st warrant the way it's listed it talks about mrs cole body is arrest right it talks about how she was arrested and found to be in possession of fraudulent credit cards then it says talks about how mr adamson the informant comes in and says listen i've been driving this guy a mystical body and he's visiting his wife in jail and you know i i think i see him with fraudulent credit card stuff that in and of itself is corroboration because he could have said well you know i was driving this guy he's been visiting his wife in jail i think she's involved with something i don't know whether this but you know the way the sequence is kind of kind of outlined in the affidavit there is corroboration at least with respect to the fact that you know mr adamson was driving an individual who did have a spouse who was in jail for a particular type of crime so in light of that i believe there there is sufficient corroboration and to address actually mistook that man's point he tried to make a temp temporal proximity issue with respect to probable cause in terms of you know suggesting that wait a minute this is cool wadia could have been arrested long ago how do we know that this evidence is still fresh the point is the evidence was potentially involved had to deal with mr korb audience involvement with the computer equipment and producing fraudulent credit cards therefore when mr adamson goes to the police following his  interaction with them telling them listen i had new information mr cool body has moved he's changed the senate the in terms of where he's gone and i actually hands on help to move all his stuff to room eleven at the  subscribed to on the th the very same day that mr adelson of and then it wasn't executed by law enforcement until the day after in february it's it is it is pretty much as close to contemporaneous as we have in these situations so therefore looking at the totality of the circumstances and under the deference and the view that this court has given when it reviews search warrants that been issued by other courts i think that that probably probable cause has been satisfied with respect to particularity you know i think mr gottman complains that mr adamson didn't particularly describe the computers but in terms of what the law enforcement was supposed to be looking for i think the warrants described was sufficient particularly yet you're supposed to look for computers or devices that may be involved with respect to the production of fraudulent credit cards turning to turn to appendix page forty he simply states that he simply describes the material as equipment computers equipment and various credit cards so it's much more it's other not that i'm aware of your honor basically if you're going by the affidavit again appendix appendix page fifty it describes that on the date law enforcement executed the warrant they located two laptops five cellular telephones and forty one prepaid debit cards and then with respect to the information that was provided in addition to the adoption of the information from  the st warrant you see that they had conducted a nd interview that was recorded with mr adamson who then alluded to the potential tax refund part of the screen and then city police had identified that the credit cards that were used to arrest mrs cole badia also had tax refunds the positive with them given all the circumstances both warrants were adequately supported by probable cause but to the extent that even if this court were to believe that the probable cause was insufficient there's simply no evidence to suggest that any reason why the leon good faith exception should not be applied under the circumstances before you go there i want to ask you about the computer being powered to the nd affidavit what what what is the record with respect to who powered on in other words if the computer was on and there was the screen was visible and therefore in plain view or is it that the agents came to the computer to press the button to see if it was power on and then something popped up on the screen so there is no record with that your honor and i think mr government was making the argument that it seems from his interpretation of that statement which again appears on appendix  fifty starts on a fifty and then continues on to page fifty one dollars it's mr governments that you can assume that that's what happened but it's the government's new view that the right  respect to the computers or the such why should a still read what i guess so you know it's basically says the computer seized during the search warrant was powered on and did have an open document on screen upon seizure it's unclear i concede that it's unclear but by the same token i don't think there's anything necessarily to suggest that law enforcement turned on the computer what go to whether or not there was misconduct outside of the warrant the problem is in the courts below this was not squarely addressed this is an issue that's being raised now but i guess my question is who's it's distributed but he is i would say under the plane error review standard given that this was not quite squarely addressed definitely not addressed in terms of law enforcement acting a low at this juncture this specific issue was not pressed i think i referenced it in our filings that there was a point where he suggested with these of the the  not show any again inquiry into the officers about that but at the end of the day there's no need to go there again because of the fact that i think basically what you have here is in terms of warning one thing that all it and warn to being valid and absolutely no evidence to suggest improper activity on the part of law enforcement there's nothing on the boardwalk is because of the fact that even if that even that that sentence or nothing what is referenced in terms of the status of that computer everything all the other information proceeding that provide a probable cause in order to search back computer you know given especially mr addison statement that there was fraudulent tax returns and then there was also information from the peachtree investigation of mrs badia to suggest that those debit card cards also contain tax return information that he saw equipment for producing encroachments credit cards so that wasn't just something that was added for purposes of the of the warrant by the officers a failure to show either that the person has a track record or anything else that gives you a basis for relying on him he's not a paid informant right meant to comes in and volunteers information which if he's lying will subject him to perjury work or worse right that's correct your honor but i think that the courts cases and the supreme court cases don't draw that veracity isn't only for pagan formants with any informant if if we don't know anything about him it's expected the police will do some sort of independent investigation in an effort to