print out something new and put it in the warrant before he served it without going back to the judge there is not nothing mistaken about what you have do you have a finding of fact that this was intentional and part of the officer well yeah well the judge found below that a different warrant was served kind of standard understand it and i don't finding that the alteration sort of going back into the computer attaching the nerves every day you have a finding of fact that that was i don't think so but i'm glad i don't have to argue that position to you i think it's very different i think if you took just copied it i don't i get you to answer your own i'm not trying to put i guess as you're answering a question i w you to focus on why making a copy using a photo of a static process is ok whereas using making a copy using a printing process using a computer in a address but it wasn't rude to be a clerical error and here when you get what happened here which is the scope of the search is greatly expanded because the policeman decided to take an act which  you out of the office and who conducted the search didn't know about the original warrants time by the judge only off the casper who said he had a meeting but fortunately for the officers perhaps the the the th they seized were within the warrant the only work they were added was i think three places they weren't added the word or nearby so it was you know in the house or nearby or in the garage or nearby and also where it is including but not limited to including the not living right but  an issue after our first argument that he had to address good afternoon your honor i mean amber rose and representing the united states in this case the issue here is remedy there's no question that there was a fourth amendment violation from the officers inadvertent attachment  thirteen the court refers to the officers conduct as inadvertent negligent unintentional use a number where you were two things for me i found to have p page twenty six but then you give me another page so you thirteen finding that both officers were credible page lines eighteen and nineteen what the officers had testified to was that the additional language in the attack that they didn't know or mean for the additional language to be in the attachment so the so the court found them credible on that point so that  i'll agree with that i think of that you look i think it's but then when you also take that in combination with what i what we read from tab you page thirteen the quotes there i don't i mean i think that that language in the list that was taken to the site was negligently inadvertently or accidentally included so i think that combination those two statements by the court equal a finding that the court believed the officer when he said that the change to the list was inadvertent i think it's important to clarify the scope of what the intent goes to and we're talking about was the fourth amendment violation the warrant was changed by the addition of a different attachment that has or nearby and not limited to right language but of course it's not a fourth amendment violation to print out something that's not within where's the fourth amendment violation when are we the government of course you can position below that there was no fourth amendment violation alternately the court found that there was and we're not here contesting act and we are saying even if there was nonetheless me that's what i'm trying to do the officers had testified that they in fact did not exceed the scope of the search that everything that where they looked and everything they found was limited to inside the houses and the like but that officer testified i believe he testified and i guess i could be mistaken that they not only found everything inside the house where they had only looked inside the house exact reason that you're stating and we are not here contesting that all we're saying what i think what the issue here that that's not the issue before the court that you before this court is whether the court below gave the proper remedy for that violat the war and the things that just was first this is something else right i understand your question i think i have two fold answer to that one is because i think this course jurisprudence and that of the supreme court  say what you can in a warrant for example in this court's decision in united states versus what happened there was the officers had a valid warrant that was signed in approved by the judge when they went out to the search site they didn't  them at all so the court found that the warrant was completely lacking in particular r t ok but it remained of the case in the district court to determine what evidence was contraband seized in plain sight because it all it's just a collection of papers i think there's a couple reasons one is i don't think in this case or even in ground that the violation the fourth amendment violation was the failure in other words he could have ever been more careful in putting out the file and instead he has something else and a sense of officer out in the field he's the only one who has the power to tell the judge can do what the officer executing you can do what the person who's home is being searched can do is the only guy who's got the power to figure out how to make sure the thing being sent out there like a loaded gun is a document which is approved by the judge is  i'm comfortable with the side that after judge just approved documents approved warrants that law enforcement officers can take it upon themselves to not only take apart and reassemble them but they can your computer and print the same document over again it is that i don't want to see much why isn't it well we don't know this is new stuff we don't have we don't have a kids dealing with this this will be the first case of will required to execute the warrant approved by the judge and not the same piece of paper by the judge but the content the same as approved by the judge and he accidentally  reviewed parts of the warrant were in fact also taken to the search site and i think the bigger issue is look the courts generally apply the principle of severance and try to uphold the valid portions of the warrant that they and he does not say one way or the other as to whether any of the searching took place outside the school does that make a difference to your case i don't think it does because the fact is the fourth amendment violation was found and i think it is a punishment i would warrant that the evidence that was not the product of the illegality needs to be suppressed also and i think the question there is now the answer there is no because it was unintentional that the language was changed and that ought to count for something and you're not after castro was not flagrantly disregarding the terms of the warrant he may have been imprudent in reprinting it out he may have been careless in not reading it but he wasn't trying to disregard the in content and not include those eight additional words then i would argue there would be no fourth amendment violation then the warrant is executed was the warrant authorized every item that was authorized to be seized by the judge was would have been taken to the search site the officer's discretion would have been properly limited to the homeowners to you know have the defendant been home his notice and assurance would have been secure and that's what the fourth minute guaranteed it doesn't guarantee that the officers are going to make mistakes that times and when their mistakes bought you know bought go too far and the evidence is going to be suppressed but do you suppress the evidence that doesn't result from the illegality when it's an unintentional mistake i