simple special facts personal st is that the property searched by the detectives without the owner's consent was a personal computer and the supreme court has held in riley versus california that a search of cell phones without a warrant  explicit permission to the rd party to look at that private property and that makes sense because and since it's a way for us a waiver of the right to privacy if you're sharing information jacobson court said quote it is well settled that when the individual to the rd party but reveals can happen in a different way and that's what happened in jacobson the review can happen spontaneously what happened in jacobson is that because punk my friend she fed ex did a crappy job shipping the package the package opened up and the employee saw in plain view the cocaine and then called the police the police came and they soaring in plain view the cocaine they took some out and they tested it so there was a reveal it was just a different type of reveal niece opened up the computer that was hidden under the bed it was close to our off and they searched it and then they brought the information to the police and the police rather than getting a warrant which is really what they should have done they went through the laptop and they find all kinds of  of should expect if you're reasonable that somebody is going to find out what's in it you're giving up your right to privacy to an extent when you give property to a common carrier there was a case where the briefcase in the suitcase left in the in the airport an attendant was abandoned the ploy opened up a suitcase or contraband called the police and showed it to them but that again is an abandonment of a right to privacy and it was a comic area so let's assume that we don't agree with that but there's a decision was you whether or not police exceeded the scope of private search so let's talk about that ok so when the nice went to the police and this is reflected in the one application then they say that you saw your picture of a little naked girl that's all that she said and also if you had a video but didn't describe the video the police did not ask her to disclose what she saw the police did not investigate whether she was a reliable witness whether she had made these kind of complaints and four and whether if so when they turned down they just took the easy way out they opened up the laptop and they searched for themselves and the information the claims made in the what she said was not included so my point is if you exclude what the officer said and which is really the bulk of the affidavit if you exclude that if you find that that was improper what's left is not enough probable cause to officiate a warr and i'll just refer to the one application she was very she said so a little picture of a naked little girl that's not enough that's not necessarily pornographic she may very well see him push probably did but she didn't tell him that and what was in the wine throwing a laptop onto the roof of his house getting back to judge cochran's question while the general run of things that seems to be more than enough evidence that she wore may i mean sure the way i mean this work now through a bunch of times one application is nothing it was conclusory statements with no factual information about what she actually saw and i think this court actually says in a case that new pictures even if a child doesn't necessarily qualify as pornography  morning your honour's she may it please the court my name is elizabeth you see an ever present united states your honor in terms of the your honors in terms of the private search detective henderson's search or mimic henderson did was reasonable which is the cornerstone of the th amendment the nice go is that the house she sees what she's believes to be child pornography she then goes into her and she believes it's her uncle's house who lives with his parents as well she goes into his bedroom finds a nd laptop computer opens that up sees child pornography on there she leaves that in his bedroom because she's worried that he is going to find out that she has found this she takes the the one that's found under the bed in the room and she takes it immediately to the st precinct the st printing said we need to go to headquarters and have a detective look at this she brings it to the headquarters she the detective henderson and detective sweeney are reasonable  interview the niece about what she saw and they asked for specifics and they asked specifically where she saw it where she saw it is when you turn on the laptop it's on the desktop so it's the st page when you look at that it's all the icons where you click to your word document or if you have pictures there or whatever you have so detective henderson who is a forensic examiner himself wants to make sure that he keeps the integrity of the evidence as close to original as possible he opens it up in her presence and on the laptop he sees thumbnail images of what appear to be little girls naked or engaged in sexual acts with so that to you know the drill down into any files he just merely clicks on i believe he said two videos the niece said that she knows she did at least one those were on the laptop not with any folders but clicked on that and confirmed what he already knew or was pretty sure that these were child pornography he did that it took a matter of seconds maybe minutes to do that and they decided that they need to freeze the scene back at his house and they send an officer officer mark and back to clear the house while they get a warrant and then he had to talk to sweeney go and confront mr fall at his workplace they give him h what he did if it was outside of what she said is dependent mists and in terms of jade's and they're looking at the degree of invasion of a th amendment per expectation of privacy and belief here because it's so  confirmatory search of what he has been already told specifically and very reasonably of what he was supposed to do and then they attempted to go talk to her fall and instead of using an exit in circumstance because he finds out that they're the at his house or what's going on there he's going to go back in which is what he did he went back and he put the computer that was on this is after he has been confronted by the police and after he spoke with his mother said the police have secured the house went back got into his back there are goes into a room in the back and then puts that computer which is where the majority of the child pornography was found at least in terms of what was church onto the roof and that's what the neighbor saw so and the police while they were drafting their warrant had that information included that a warrant and as just as congress pointed out the independent source doctrine could also apply here because if you take out and in our brief we do take out the information that  districts and some magistrate judges want the actual pictures attached to the warrant so they can determine especially included most obvious circumstances which you know for best practices is not necessarily a bad practice however is it necessary t for the house no one talks about that there is any bad faith that there is anything wrong with with what was put that well that searching agents that were lying valid warrant what they perceive to be a valid warrant for the house agrees to barracks that go to the horror of the war in this case one of your colleagues from the eastern district is saying that the issue here and curious that that was cases and i think there can be a differentiation between what the police did because you can have cocaine in a locker and if they don't or in a house and if they don't get a warrant to get in there people are going to love it is it going to be thrown out is going to be a because the temporary in your computer automatically saves it when you're doing it in order but as i understand it it may save it without you even seeing it there there is an argument about that your honor or however this particular defendant had over seven hundred and  defense counsel made a very effective argument and brought this up and now during the trial to the jury and including in the end made this exact argument the jury is the finder of fact in terms of a tent is always fact found that there was sufficient evidence or there was a beyond reasonable doubt to show that he got these exact files if you and if so what was the year it was a totality of circumstances and it was all circumstantial which can be used to prove intent it all in the temporary and internet files and it was a period of collecting child pornography over six months in this particular case we had an old computer that was found in mr files bedroom over one hundred and thirty images all from the internet from their banners you could tell from the top of the banners that sort of thing what you're going to see on the top of the head of c d s and d v d s i think six or seven that contains over one thousand nine hundred images of child pornography and twenty one videos of child pornography some of those dating back admitted that there was child pornography out there that was an old laptop the newer laptop the h p laptop that was found on his bed had over seven hundred images in the temporary internet files as well as videos in the act space those are from march two thousand and sixteen and i'm still having trouble with that here at the circumstantial evidence the government believes in totality look at the top talent circumstances was enough to show that this is a savvy child pornography collector that he did it for many many years using many types of technology as well as different media he had the video for yet the three computers d v d s a cloud storage box on dropbox it's not by mistake or accident and i think what dobbs and the others are concerned about is that you have this unwitting defendant that that just happens to be a charge this poor man charged with child pornography although that one scenario there could also be a not so unwitting defend a it is a lot of circumstances that are that include direct things that lead to a particular fact being true so in this case you do you have anything that shows that he knew that these images that were being stored or were these really just were that were being collected by computer in other words didn't show it all at least one occasion he knew that these things were read sort of this computer on the rooftop but they need to be saying and maybe this is your argument we can assess that but you seem to be saying because you think in the totality of the circumstances some of the pornography was that you should be the jury was  government to want to charge him with receipt given where they were found your honor those were the on that on that particular computer those are the only image is that that all the images were in the temporary internet files if if they're not good usually don't have a date range at all you know it just came up there at some point it was probably deleted but i guess my point is you had so much of the stuff here not for that particular computer your honor and what at least you know to get a because we know that he received it through the internet we have the jurisdictional nexus of that in case other you know if they somehow show that this computer was was created in virginia i think internet yes like taking your luggage on an airplane from here to someone else you're transporting it well it's i mean it's interesting questions to think about what's transportation with the internet there you know with we would be mailing it to yourself phone then it's back to the it's not knowing your honor that it wouldn't be charged but when someone is if you know it's being backed up to the cloud is that transportation and most people who know anything about that hardly anything about i'm for one place say out there whether or not you have a position known just for the sake of discussion there's a truck that wrestle with these issues i mean i think that if this is someone who is was an avid collector and making sure that he backed up diamond just briefly i think that concern is well founded because of the internet a lot of things that were not federal crimes before not enough become federal crimes and it's a slippery slope or on really to find out where to draw the line  tennison said i opened the computer and the so icons on the desktop that appeared to be new and individuals question they looked like children and they could have been this is an appendix ninety three to ninety four so i guess that's it thank you very