slept in their home in sugarland texas the government executed a search warrant on their home this is what they presented to mr going to war one page this search warrant contains the address of the place to be searched which was correct there's absolutely nothing in attachment should be sealed i wasn't asking what should or should not be she and i missing as a matter of fact at the time that warrant was executed attachment it was called appendix b appendix b was a generic list a laundry list of the documents and items that they could seize in s d i even with that attached and properly served the court held that it was did lack particularities because it did not describe the criminal conduct that was a bit under under look at the underlying criminal conduct so it lacked particulary in that case however unlike this case the court also had before government says doesn't matter if they got had the affidavit present or not the purpose of the affidavit or the allegations within the attachments is to give the agency some some idea about what the conduct is so they know what their  they listed a bunch of white collar criminal statutes there was no facts alleged as to what was going on in the case so when they're looking at their search work they don't know what kind of thirteen forty one male friends going on here they don't know what this case is about regarding the aforementioned violations mentioned in paragraph six well paragraph six is nowhere to be found in the attachment paragraph six is part of the affidavit that was not present with the agent's well i'm sorry i'm i thought you were going to that piece of evidence that ok so in the process they went to this to a storage locker i don't know if they had permission to go the storage locker that's on the record either but they went to a storage locker and they took personal correspondence between mr and so this is this is a s executing this warrant they took all the correspondence between mr and mrs neck then a bore they had nothing to do personal correspondence and had nothing to do with this case how do you know whether to alleged in letters to each other do or do not disclose the way that they're described in the let me let me finish my question how do you know whether they discussed the conspiracy or they provide evidence of the conspiracy or not until you read the documents well just the general description of the talks about some other unrelated matter it says correspondence regarding if if the officers that have the affidavit how would that have changed their behavior that had the accident yeah they probably wouldn't have taken all of the kids computers and all the kids cell phones and all of the kids cameras they wouldn't have taken what is why not how would the affidavit have convinced them not to take the kids computer since the adults could have gotten on so they could if they were supposed to have gotten into the computers to take a look to see an involved any of the two criminal pieces of conduct here which is to tax returns one for t g and one for b b i'll do they know ground i don't know they do cameras what does what do cameras have to do with the allegations in this case they took cash which is cash have to do with the allegations in this case they took camera cases they took some computer cases they took twenty five hundred dollars so i don't know it doesn't list how much cash was taken so you're basing this point without any support that there was anything wrong use of cash right so i don't know what that has to do with fozzy i thought you were b which they had right how would knowing what the crime was which was an affidavit have affected they are taking out the cash or not taking the cash well i don't know if they have to take something i don't know what a camera has to do with false income tax returns i thought was a camera part of attachment b i've never found anything that said it says electronic recording equipment i guess you could call a camera electronic recording equipment most of the kids good morning my name is robert conti i'm here on behalf of the united states may please the court let me just answer some of the questions that came up just moments ago first the affidavit was not at the s e second the search warrant was under seal including the attachment be the agent did have written permission to go to the storage locker and the case wasn't just about to tax returns it was about three hundred tax returns that were filed at the caylee address and u c l a it was also about identity theft it was about  the government's principal argument which i think is fairly illustrated by the discussion of what's in the record was that developed is that defendants arguments regarding rule forty one and the over breath of attachment b were not raised in the district court well that's why i asked that's why i asked counsel whether she was principle here on rule forty one or the fourth amendment she told us today that she was principle here on the fourth and that's that's fine your honor i've set that but was what was presented in the briefs before the court has a very strong argument about rule forty one and deliberate disregard of the agents and trying to paint a picture that are going to appears to have been two of the way because it was not raised below the any of the circumstances although it was briefed here but  argument and it doesn't appear to been developed at all ok thank you but i'll focus on the attachment the issue of whether attachment b and the worn itself was overly broad that argument too was not brought up before the district court there was no discussion of the items in attachment be the very questions that your honour's are asking was there something in attachment the about the camera observation there but i will when you give an explanation you said well there's more i'm not on the stand in your argument about how the more helps you any since the more is not exclusive if it says this is limited a little bit i think it helps us in the sense that it gives the agents in this attachment be we just don't have just a listing of statue one but if we find something that is not covered by the second s the one that had drafted this i would've been more careful with that and put paragraph one be no question in your mind that the search warrant was properly obtained right no question in my mind and complaint before us is whether a procedural device which is that fair i would understand that is as the as the remaining claim yes ok yes i understand after all so you know just going through attachment b you can see that the first eight categories are limited by a date a date range of other categories we have here on the are two fifty five clearly related to tax returns we talked about paragraph seed there's the mention of cash there's the mention of travel records and and other things we had a far ranging  identity theft and false return scheme that the agents were trying to unravel but when the stamp thank you thank you very much on a basis are your sense of w