involves a defendant who rearmed with rifles handguns in a shotgun less than forty eight hours after an arizona court issued a domestic violence order of protection against him twice refused his request to get his firearms back and told him in no uncertain terms that federal law prohibited his possession of any firearms this was his  not his st time going down this this road he had previously been found in possession of any other firearm well under another domestic violence order of protection and on learning these facts special agent allison  prepared a detailed affidavit seeking authorization to search his residence the vehicle for evidence of his violation of the prohibited possessor statute of a united states magistrate judge fan based on an affidavit found the warrant here in terms of how overbroad it was i don't know we're going to get to the bar arms that was there any basis to search for his vehicle registration records for the ledgers and i guess they i standing here i don't know the answer to that but clearly the government and knowledge that and put those aside so and when you look at the sufficiency of a warrant you can you can sever other parts that  lot of confidence in terms of what was presented well it was listed in the attachment and then what was taken and i understand that we're going to focus on the firearms in fact let's do that now i'm  just trying to figure out what is the basis in your view for taking firearms listing a search for all firearms beyond the ten that were erroneous lee given back to him from the phoenix property room sure and this your honor goes into why this case is far different than the nora case that the district court found controlling so here we have a case that doesn't involve just one firearm but a multiplicity of firearms we know there's probable cause for the ten the defense concedes that they're answering three but in addition to that we know he was tied to a prior firearm defendant was doing so he was engaging in extraordinary efforts to rearm himself notwithstanding the success of diminished domestic violence orders of protection so we know he was a repeat violator of the farm's bar not in his house how does that how do we square that with your so the prior possession just shows that he was a repeat violator now when you add that fact to the fact that he disobeyed he just took such affirmative steps to rearm despite being told by a state court commissioner that he couldn't have these weapons he took erroneous lete issued paperwork convinced a clerk to g the ten firearms and did so after acknowledging in open court that he understood the farm's bar that's in the affidavit paragraph fourteen after he had been served in open court with the restraining order and with the notice of brady indicator that's in paragraph thirteen of the affidavit as well he took this extraordinary step of driving across town presumably to the police department to get these weapons back and then all well he was had twice been found to be an ongoing continuing danger to the safety of his ex spouse so added is i'm sorry can i ask you to back up for minix i think we're all pretty well not investigating him for some sort of crime involved in his recovery or the way that he obtained the ten guns from the city it was a prohibited possession case and nor on the that it was being investigated for a misdemeanor of having weapon on a public street and of course nor i was significantly different because there was tainted evidence because they arrest in his home and so the court here that you know cut out all the other evidence and looked at whether there was probable can the government just say we know that they that people who have been convicted of that before we go in we know it tend to have guns even though they're not and thereby lation we can just open their doors and go in and look for all their guns even though we don't really know that they have any more guns beyond what we know that we saw and that we have is that that's that's the problem here i think and if you can establish that he had there was cause beyond the fact that you know what he's a prohibited possessor he he likes to get guns we can go in and get any and all guns even if we don't know they're there it is that's not what he said he said i would i want with he said it is i have a basket collection of inherited military arms that have been taken away from me for a year and i would very much like to have those back and that was a year from that day that the ten our arms from the property management bureau were taken away from batchelor when he made that state so i'm just trying to figure out and you know the question is could put the i guess the best straight judge who just looked at that statement and oh that's enough but i have a little trouble that he might have had firearms beyond the ten that that he knew he had taken iran and you need to have a i think why they are the laws you need to have probable cause for the items that you're looking for and so the ten you can say you can say it once you get there and you're looking for the ten and you eyed other ones course you can get them those are common basic principles of search and seizure so i think the best way of responding is to look to the cases that say you take a commonsense practical approach to looking at the search warrant not a hypertechnical approach and we look to whether it's reasonable inference can be drawn from this unique and compelling constellation of facts that any number of guns are likely to be found in this person's is action this is not a case where we just knew that he was a prohibited possessor so we decided  to search his house for any weapons he might have there is far more here than a case like that and that's what really distinguishes this case is that you had this individual who stood in arizona state court and was told directly by a judge a commissioner you are not to have firearms and then he goes and he gets firearms that kind of your combined with the fact that he had been twice been determined to be a danger to his ex wife and his prior possession taken as a whole makes it reasonable to infer that there were more guns there plus the notion that any guns in his position possession would have been contraband and even if that that is correct and if you have those guns that is the vision to go forward with the prosecution i think it would be your honor and so you don't need the cull forty five and you don't need anything else that wasn't found in his home correct ok things together i say well at the very end we are looking for we're looking for the guns we got from the from the police department and perhaps anything else you don't have anything else except for the colt forty five and if the district court had sa r be number one from two through twelve and you can you can and you can abandon the colt forty five and just say all we really are interested in is the fact that he possesses the guns he got back from the police department so that is a remedy that would be perfectly appropriate here we asked for a reversal of the entire suppression order because we think that all nine guns and all of the ammunition were seized were seized properly within the scope of the probable cause set forth in the affidavit but if but if the court alternatively wants to look at this remedy that your honor just sketched out i think that would be acceptable how is the government going to establish that the weapons the firearms i traveled in interstate commerce so it may be that a t f can find serial numbers on firearms and checked certain records amounts of cash and records to show transactions involving firearms and it does seem on its face that it might not be valid that there are things they have to prove besides just the fact that they are fire the hackers interstate commerce that is all correct your honor and i just want to want to point out though that that was never you know you can really litigated the the motion to suppress was targeted at the firearms the court's order is targeted at the firearms the court only ordered suppression of the firearms and that's what we're we're seeking to get him not any evidence at all at the when he said the subject search subject of discussion was the firearms but you didn't put that eight  and the parties briefs which really argued matters of law whether nora controls this case whether the good faith exception applies so going into the oral argument on the motion  the court conferring with everybody at the outset i understand this isn't going to be hearing involving taking evidence that we're going to with with argument and that is essentially what happened so it wasn't really until much later on in the argument itself that the discussion evolved in such a way that defense counsel said hey government you should put on testimony and then mention a case that had been previously been brought up in any of the br so i think that's i think that's what happened there but i don't think that it is really relevant i don't think we even have to address those issues because the record before the court the affidavit itself is really that the key part of the record that is all that we really need to consider here but how do you get into the i mean are you talking about good faith now well ok now i will move on to good faith so i don't have time to talk but i just want to know is  we're talking about was the thing you know i think that applies to the whole of the whole argument ok all right thank you i'll give you a few minutes i'm sorry i'm kind of gone over time here but  thank you thank you friend in the other box over there and the court that the right way to measure the validity of warrant in terms meaning whether the warrant is overbroad is to compare the probable cause may have an arsenal and it's on your honor may i ask you a question about your hypothetical over the the target crime is drug distribution i mean that would  maybe depends on whether the affidavit or the warning rises the search for any controlled substance number one number but that was in my hypothetical is they have they have evidence of a couple of controlled buys or would be too broad no because it would be fairly it would be fair when i heard that when you're trying to investigate drug trafficking and you want to go after someone who is selling a large quantity of drugs  that would be associated with drug trafficking but the difference here your honor is that the affidavit in this case described a very simple thing he was told he couldn't have these guns he went to the police department got them back and for some reason they gave them to have eight guns or ten guns tend to be collectors tend to be involved in the sale and purchase of guns that it doesn't describe it doesn't look this particular affidavit about what mister batchelor  people who want multiple guns tend to want to get others and there's constantly training them back and forth or something like you might see in a child pornography investigation but here's what this st paragraph since based on my training and experience and know that it is common for persons who firearms so engage in such activity from their residence in vehicles it's tempted to conceal their dealings from detection by what i also know based on the above investigation that bachelor previously has store his residence and  that is aimed at saying look when you go and look at these eight farms or think you might i mean there's his apartment and you might find him in his car it does doesn't it also say she's talking about what she knows from her experience with about the records with that there's evidence in those records that can establish where a gun came from and the government has to prove that so that you know is a reason for them to ask for those things doesn't usually in my experience the government doesn't usually attempt to prove that certain foreign travel that interstate commerce at a felony possession trial or whatever by getting the evidence of interstate commerce from the defendant himself well it depends it depends on what evidence they have available sometimes they can tell from serial numbers so times they have records from gun shows i mean sometimes there are other ways to do it but it's not all that uncommon for people to obliterate serial numbers on firearms and then they look for other one state to another ok so that just sort of bolsters my point just be because this affidavit recites that we already know that some of these parents tried troubled interstate commerce they don't they don't and perhaps i misunderstood was that that went really to whether it was in good faith that he thought that made the board so broad that no reasonable officer could have relied upon it although they may regularly receive warrants that have to search for him to ship ownership  because one of the issues is that is that my house i don't live here those guns are mine and the drugs aren't mine i mean they're you know those are going to be common things in a search warrant but nonetheless you know mister good wasn't saying all of these things were wrongfully se mean they need to they need to present a case they have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for any they need to say i didn't care for it you know evidence of a potential crime or contraband they need to show that there's reasonable likelihood that that's what they'd find that right i thought we were just talking about probable cause for this warrant right but you're talking about how all these other categories how about somehow none of that is relevant to me they weren't overbroad i'm saying that wasn't explored in the district court judge rare stayed in his order that it's no reasonable officer could possibly think that based on the application and the warrant itself i'm sorry based on the warrant itself which is a one piece of paper into attachments know that this guy has zero or contraband photographs and we have authorized a search for any and all contraband photographs council i'd like to follow up on that with think questions i asked  kuznets since there are no other guns here other than the colt forty five why shouldn't the district court have simply suppressed all of the evidence except for the weapons that were gesture that they have probable cause and probable cause to do that they were identified with particularity in the africa in the affidavit that you can make the argument that the affidavit can be incorporated that was part of the it was part of judge rai suppose that i let's suppose that i don't you can suppose for purposes of my question but i don't think that that's a valid argument that they have been identified with particular id and that and that agent can solace was on the search and she knew exactly what they were looking for well why wouldn't we why wouldn't at a minimum could we say well at least those weapons are good everything else may go but those weapons are good well because your honor there was no evidence before the just record that agents  actually there when the well just actually signed the return and that's and that's in the public record we can look at that we know what the answer is mean i guess my point my only answer to that your honor is that that's not the remedy that nora imposed nor it is it is the it is the remedy that weber imposed weber suppressed as paragraph of the of the so in whatever we clearly did excise some stuff and allowed other stuff to proceed why isn't why isn't weber exactly on point for that that is we may have to act we may have to to excise some things that were seized but at least as to those guns there's no there's no reason to suppress that says what what you've said it says and so i don't i don't have their answer for that i'm sorry ok i mean there's a it's a very very short order from judge from judge res it's fairly conclusory it's a little it's a little frustrating why isn't the right thing to do here to admit the guns that everybody knew that he had were identified with particularity and set out in an affidavit by an agent who who took the warrant that she sought and went in and know based on fact that we conceded before the district court and i have conceded before this court that there was always probable cause to seize the whatever firearms that were returned mister batchelor by the by the phoenix police even in borderline or marginal cases and if the tie goes to the magistrate judge if you will and the district court here failed to grapple with deference at all and fail to grapple with the common sense practical standards that apply to that from the government's perspective but by the right answer here is well that is a free up perfectly acceptable answer from the government's perspective i think the court could go further though and honor is there anything else is there anything else that was that the government needs well just for perhaps for other case related purposes there was all the ammunition that was seized none of which he was legally allowed to have but your honor that there was whatever else was seized the falls into those categories just wasn't the object of suppression so i don't think there's any need to suppress them now with the just report didn't  that's if you look at the st paragraph of his order he says that that's the most the motion is to suppress the firearms and ammunition and he says for the reasons explained below that motion is granted so i think that's that's really all that we