thank you and may please the court my name is andrew brandon i am here today on behalf of sam are up now and yes that is how he pronounces its st name i have already requested three minutes for  honour's a search warrant is not merely a document piece of paper that police officers have worked very hard to obtain it is a legal document with legal significance specifically authorizes search of a specific residence in this case the search warrant authorized search of a specific residence on kerry road you know hartsville trails del county tennessee warrant was not a warrant with respect to the home on new hope road because they did not authorize that specific search in fact it authorized another but there were parts of the warrant that  correct address right it's at the top of the of the warrant that description takes you exactly to that property i mean what was the probability that there would be a mistake in search in this case honor i don't think there is a high probability that there would be a that that this caravan of officers of twenty officers none of whom had read the warrant mind you but i don't think there's a high probability that they would have driven  count in fact i think that's i would concede that probability with essentially nonexistent however that that standard of whether they're really going to go somewhere else really applies to  particularities analysis which is an argument we've made and i think we prevail on but be you know we i think the better analysis is either whether there was a search warrant for this property   search this other place that that creates a complete and total mismatch of probable cause rendering this warrant deficient and i think that's the frankly the better analysis and i should add that the government has not addressed that analysis in its briefing that was those were arguments number one and number two in my briefs and the government really has not addressed why is this not why is this not just like any other clerical error case that we and we have several of them and yes it's not transposed digits on an address but isn't it that type of mistake and why shouldn't we just look at that case law and the question of whether there was any chance they were going to screw up the search well your honor i think that the court can analyze it under  s and here what we have is a total mismatch between where the probable cause is and where there is to be searched and i would assert that this is much more like one of the cases where  more like say the hudson case where you say hey there's probable cause for this but i'd really like to search for this other thing if in fact i think this is more significant than ben hudson because it implicates the entire residence and which residence is is at issue but counsel is just catholics i'm sorry i'm not on the video this i mean if we're going to make the analogy to hodson which i'm not sure we should but if we do it would seem like the better description of that analogy would be this is a case where the officers go and actually look for evidence of the right crime amala station not child pornography because they go to the right that's correct your honor though i would i would add that the you know in hans in the offense the probable cause for the offense would have involved a computer search as as i read that case because you know the search or that the officers had discovered this offense and discovered that mr johnson was using his computer for that purpose and that's why the government argued for inevitable discovery which was also rejected and so i do think that they would have gotten into that computer in any event it's just that the words sort of were the wrong of the wrong type  yeah so i guess i mean it's number one i other that setting aside i really didn't see any authority for the proposition that a warrant like t as a warrant to search the address for which there is problem i mean there isn't a case at least in our survey says that yet is that fair i think that's fair i think the closest case would maybe be gro martinez out of the supreme court where they where they you know it's a it's a different issue it's not the two houses but they say in this respect the warrant was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless within the meaning of the yeah and but and so i guess getting to maybe my my principal concern with your argument is that when we look at this warrant and its description o probable cause there is probable cause to search the new hope address it's a seems fairly count obvious to me that this warrant was one to search the new hope address  it just would make any sense for them to go server search a different address than the one for which they had probable cause to search and that the address at the end of the warrants was pretty clearly a typo and so i guess they circle back to judge nope and use point which is you know why isn't this just a clerical mistake that that really wasn't that consequential given that it's pretty obvious which  address this warrant was intended to allow the officers to search and they did search the right one well your honor i think i think that it is it is fair to say that this was mostly innocent clerical  but you know under under leon we if we even get there which which i certainly don't but but under leon you know we do ask not just is it is it innocent but on the front end but is it sort of innocent on the back and that whether this was a rubber stamp review and and and it's not really as i understand it part of your initial argument which i take to be that correct me if of your very initial argument is that this is sort of categorically insufficient warrant because you have to look at the operative words of the warrant and the operative words describe a different about my understanding that correctly that's correct your honor and this judge would have had authority to issue a warrant for new oprah for the for the address they wanted to search right  but but your st argument it really doesn't depend on whether the the one in the operative language was in a different jurisdiction or not it's based on the fact that it's just the wrong one in the operative words that's correct ok that's thank you and i think that the you know the jurisdiction argument addresses how much of an error it is and just how dramatic it is but i did it for the purposes of your st two arguments that goes more to  the nd part of your st two arguments yes your honor but even if one did you were off for instance than that i think we would we could all agree that we would you know i would i probably wouldn't be able to make my roman numeral one argument fundamentally removed because it states there's probable cause one place and then authorize a search of another place and again with a sort of jurisdictional question it's really just that would have stood out like a sore thumb and this judge should have seen that the officer should have seen that everyone involved should have seen so your argument about your argument for why we are in wouldn't applies at the officers themselves know officers themselves should have noticed they could rely on your face on this warrant if any of them had read it and we have evidence that maybe one you know the one who wrote it had previously read it but we know and i see my time's up i meant finish yeah we know that there was only one officer who sort of knew the contents of it but but if any of them and read it that then this would have been you know there were twe clerical error cases either isn't i mean this address is in a completely different jurisdiction from restorers this judge would be concerned i mean that's not just transposing digits in an address right is it is it just the case that as long as they show up to the right place just x post were ok with it and what would the case be where it would be agreed just even though they actually went to the right place and we would say question is the if any officer had read this and had read that address or if the judge had read that address why wouldn't they have noticed this is not even in the judge a recess is not even in my it rather the st part said there's probable cause to search this house and these four individuals and then the last part of it you know rd analogue let us say that you are hereby commanded to forthwith commanded so it it reference the premises that had been previously described in the in the probable cause section and said go search these four individuals it did sort of omit the last you know that it failed to repeat the address but it did reference the premises and it did reference the four individuals who are to be found on that address as described in the in the st part and so again we don't have this complete mismatch of the two of the probable cause and place to be searched there was that they did omit the address from the last page but these two things are fundamentally different because is reference to words you know to a sworn statement but you know i think i think that the the relevance of that fact is not entirely clear and i would ask the court to focus instead on the fact that we have a total mismatch between the probable cause stated in the least i'm having trouble seeing how ruling for you would in any way further the grand underlying reasons for  respond if i might your out of the these are the sort of rights that will corrode if they're not safeguarded here we have a warrant that again i would i would ask the court to look at the the government's argument they're saying that if you look at this war t you don't even have to have to hit the brakes on the car and pause and talk about we're fine if the warrant says the wrong place to be searched and if that is true then there could be so that the government would absolutely and they and they went and searched that house it would absolutely argue that this warrant authorized search in which case you could potentially have a warrant that is that they could argue would be good for two houses it would be perfectly ambiguous in that it could be used to search two different residences wildly different residence that's a that is getting getting these details correct and the notion that somebody would have seen this that the judge would not have seen this is really i mean this is as bad as it gets and you know i could say if i were hired to update someone it's  so i think i think that i think that would have to be that this was a grave officer error and one that any well trained officer would have and should have noticed and they bothered to look at this and we have a strong interest in them getting this thing right ok great thank you counselor and thank you both for your arguments and we will issue an opinion in due course