this court should reverse the district court signal of the motion to suppress the information relied upon in this case test the outer limits of staleness in excess requirements for a search warrant no court has applied the good faith exception to allow t search for a decade after the crime was committed and in a location where the crime did not occur the government's main argument is that the generalized presumption that individuals who possess child pornography hold on to significant period of time unfortunately on the internet but this is in fact pornography that was created by the defendant it was pornography that he relished enough to show the victim to repeatedly and it that's not something that's readily available on the internet even if that could be irrational and frankly it's not enough to overcome over a decade a time span especially when you consider the fact that the defendant here moved multiple times times and was living with his parents which is not a private residence where you would keep you know you could keep securely to yourself evidence of a crime it's also problematic in this case because as this court has said over and over again even with these presumptions they must be considered looking at the facts of this case and when you look at this created child pornography what it really looks like it was used was part of the grooming process the way that mr arkwright used as laid out in the affidavit was to continue the sexual case so that's just illustrates why it's dangerous to rely on these overarching presumptions that weren't made by the officer well relied upon by the district court when granting the search warrant and it would just be after the fact trying to ma times the affidavits that courts uphold even under good faith the opposite there will go into the back around about ok here's why we believe the crime was committed but also here's why we believe that here's the basis based on the facts if that's my experience this individual would continue to have this evidence for their video photos whatever it may be here the affidavit is thorough on what the allegation was of sexual abuse and over a decade before but there is nothing connecting to why in two thousand and eighteen mr r would still have the evidence of this crime after several moves while he was living with his parents so that's why it's entirely unreasonable in court seven circuit span in cases involving sexual abuse of minors with photographs of the abuse that that was not not too long would not this court should it find that the length of time is sufficient because it's not just the length of time it's not just the passage of time that causes problems in this case here there's also the nexus concern circuit case law that indicates you have to have a showing that somebody even in the white case where it was their own house there the rd circuit said well the child pornography was delivered to appeal box you've got to show us that he would have brought it home as opposed to like  disagree your honor i think that these contacts indicated some sort of continuing sexual interest in the victim in this case be a much harder case for me but especially considering the nature of their relationship from the very beginning it was a family friend situation that's how the victim was introduced to mr aagaard and that they're kind of they were friends together and that's the swimming me came down on top of this family i don't think that shows an indication of what the white must establish the fact that he asked to be who wasn't invited to his wedding doesn't give any more faith or the notion to the idea that he would continue to possess the pornography that he had created over a decade prior so it's up it's not strong enough to get to that point and to strengthen that argument for as a don i want to talk briefly about the franks violation it's a court does not throw out the search warrant alternatively it should be sent back for frank's hearing  thing to say there was five you know he might have moved five times he was more transit less likely to take evidence of a very serious offense with him especially if he's living with some might have moved because it's not clear that he did move five times indicate that they were at that rats that we can report is accurate report what is it i think it's on that like lexus i think our investigator uses it when they're trying to find witnesses or something like that where they let what goes with the input that causes a name to be associated with an address that i don't know but our position is by putting in that report and also putting in that the detective here who drafted the a important ownership versus renting or because even in the land case that quoted by the government when analyzing stay honest next concerns in child pornography cases a presumption that courts apply is that you're likely to keep child pornography at your home in a private location where others can't find it if york with your parents in their house your last likely to keep evidence of a heinous crime there where it could be it's more of a privacy distinction and yet less likely to keep the pornography because he's living with them than if he was living by himself so ok very well you may save the rest for a bottle mr coll here from you morning morning may have to leave the court counsel of to start with the good faith question the judge call ask the standard under good faith is whether the whether was entirely unreasonable for the officer to rely on the search warrant is approved by in this case judge hanson here we had a detail that david i think it's of something along the lines of eleven pages laying out in explicit detail the abuse that occurred over a one year period  a search warrant approved by a county attorney before presented it to judge chance and it was not entirely unreasonable for her to rely upon a search warrant that's particularly so given the state of the law and given that government's view that the search warrant was in fact supported by probable cause the question is whether there was a fair probability that the evidence being sought these images would have been retained as judge erickson pointed out in this colloquy with miss quick these were not just internet images that might be generally available these were  specific images of a specific victim that had been made and retained over a period of time the evidence is that the defendant would use a  camcorder of some sort to videotape the abuse and then on subsequent occasions show these images or these videos to the victim as part of the continued grooming process and you can you do abuse and the defendant had transferred those from the original recording to as a computer file so he had gone to the trouble of digitizing them and the staleness cases talk about the nature of the evidence and the and because they're digitized they're not likely to to be grayed and common experience teaches that people will retain these sorts of images certainly in the case to common experience of people keeping and maintaining photographs that are important to them for an extended period of time i would point out too that the search warrant a pplication does of course point out that computers are an ideal repository for keeping and maintaining images of child pornography i would point out as well the standard of review to probable cause is giving deference not to the district judge in this case but to the issue a magistrate to judge hanson's conclusion probable cause support of th probability that they will be maintained for an indefinite period of time so whether it becomes two years three years five years or in this case twelve to thirty thousand years there's still that fair probability that they would be maintained and the fact that this quick talks a lot of her grief about the fact that the officer didn't include a sentence in the search warrant affidavit saying well a lot based on my training and experience i know that these kinds of offenders maintain and retain this sort of information for an extended period of time i think that's st of all implicit in the fact that she is search that kind of material that many years later and i don't think that she needs to necessarily spell out the inference that we're asking the issue a magistrate judge or the judge in this argument seems to have changed a little here my understanding regarding the change of residence was the question of how many times had the defendant moved prior to the time the search warrant was obtained it was clear from the the defendant had moved at least three times that his home the abuse occurred on the home on the south side of the morning the defendant at some point lost his job and that report that maybe he moved multiple times while he was in iowa city that's what that accurate report if it's if it's an accurate document would would indicate but the affidavit to the search warrant made plain that the defendant had moved on multiple occasions the theories as he still had the evidence at issue was based upon the fact the nature of the people allegedly that that somehow would have fact the finding of probable cause or would be the kind of information it is so clearly critical rial to probable cause that it would compel  dispute that the defendant has obtained a driver's license using that address that he was residing there that he had registered his vehicle there the vehicle was observed at that residence shortly before the search warrant was prove executed the fact that he was living in his parents basement as opposed to we know that he was residing at that address isn't the kind of critical vital information that would the one police department she took reasonable steps and reasonably relied upon a search warrant issued by a state court judge there is no suggestion or really based on the record to say that the judge affidavit to establish good faith which is correct but courts still do require something about the facts to indicate that the defendant is a collector of child pornography and would maintain that evidence whatever it may be for the extended a period of time there there was things like a defendant had made it stored on a computer and made it difficult to access and indicating they wanted to keep private and wanted it on the computer and there was also a case indicating a collector where they said if someone distributed it to other people that could support and overcome to stay honest concerns here all the government points to is well it was transferred to a computer when the abuse was on going that that fact is insufficient to overcome the lengthy time period from the abuse to when the search warrant was executed combined with the nexus concerns that are present in this case and that's the only indication that could support any kind of conclusion that mr aagaard was a collector or a would have maintained that child pornography and finally to the face hearing there is it was argued in the motion initial motion both of those facts one properly and excluded and warranted a thanks hearing and it is presented or preponderance of the evidence to establish the requirement for frank's hearing and it's not enough to say staleness in terms of child pornographers keep it indefinitely and that's problematic because that seems to be asserting this idea that if there's now a geisha of choppers you know what the time limit that that we can go into and search someone's ho presumption in child pornography cases the idea of collectors keep it can't just overcome any time span and i would assert based on the facts of this case not only with the lengthy delay but also the multiple