police applied for the pen register truck trace order you text the application to not provide fair notice to the judge that he was approving the technology in the record of the case is a  disclosure agreement that the baltimore police department signed with harris corporation the manufacture of the real storm technology that was used in this case this technology was developed for military  provided that the baltimore police department and state's attorney should not provide information about this technology to any court as the court of special peals of maryland stated in its opinion all with respect to location the word document did not have the specificity says that since the nondisclosure agreement spoke to the execution of the warrant rather than through probable cause in the st place what bearing does that have on the issue of this case i mean i'm i'm i can see both sides of a non disclosure agreement i'm not sure i would want to say that they were you know void as a general matter but the probable cause he seemed to rest on matters that were not involved with non disclosure agreement the probable cause and i just spoke to whether they  could whether they had the right to execute this arrest warrant not have they executed it what you're talking about is how it was executed but the basic probable cause determination speaks on whether they had the right to intercept or go after the cell phone information under any s relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation however for probable cause for a warrant to issue there's probable cause to believe the contraband or evidence was located in a particular place that there are two separate matters and here the probable cause that was alleged it was found by the issuing court was not the probable cause that is required for the issuance of a bornes why wasn't this and i would contend that a cell phone is not a place where ever i would add here that you know one of the reasons one of the purposes of the th amendment i don't understand your answer in that regard you say the cell phone does not apply variety of places in an effort to be dude police he's moving around and the homes not going to go with matter it does not matter because this goes to the general invalidity of the warrant itself because he did not have the proper stuff sophisticated as to the place to be searched they were all they were looking for as i understand it was cell site location information for a particular number they did not give when the application of the warrant is concerned i did not read in the warrant application a list of different cell phone numbers there was only one cell phone number that they were interested in the cell site because a you saying that the place to be search minus in this day and age invariably be a residence with a street number despite the fact that people particularly when they're looting the police may not be at that particular residence or even most of the time as this was the chase with mr andrews and so you are telling us that in this new day and age we are still invariably is a matter of low when you get to the notion that the place to be searched under the must always be a street address and never will cell phone number that seems to me where your comments are going on correct about the well you don't i think there are a couple issues here one is mr andrews was found inside a residence and i think there are there was it is residence he had an expectation of privacy in the residence there was there was a proffer in the criminal case that another whether the place to be searched you never be yourself and never be a cell phone and you telling me that it can almost never be a cell phone with that that would never satisfy the place to be searched and i just wonder if well there should be discovery so we can find out you're on and i see my time's up but that's that's the real problem with this case is we have been existing under the shroud of secrecy  continues to this day and how can we properly analyze this case without the knowledge of how this thing works thank you thank you it's the fundamentals of criminal procedure resolve the case a search under the th amendment does not occur unless there is an invasion by the government of a reasonable expectation of privacy so that's where we should begin what w mr andrews this reasonable expectation of privacy in this case turn his own complaint in the litigation the only reasonable expectation of privacy he could claim was in his cell phone and so for purpose will the reason why it's not a search is because there has to be information that police are obtaining what we know about the cell site simulator we've reproduced in our brief we have testimony and i am in this case the only information the cell sites simulator gave the only information it could have given police was the location of the target phone in this case the phone associated with mr enders his phone number and that's why i respect your honor judge when this is may be only paying attention to one but you're actually capable of hearing and getting information as to all the other voices and that's why this is not like number one  public record about simulators the police didn't know they might have known that there were other cell phones in the area but they didn't know the numbers they had no idea to whom they belong and i would point your honour's to the testimony we reproduced on pages thirteen  equipment is identified to do the same thing it you know technologically maybe it could be done all you don't use listening all of that or you're not listening for anything else except what that  know your honor because this isn't knocking on the door because there's nothing police or learning about those other cellphones but you don't even need to reach the question these are interesting questions that are ultimately academic they're not necessary to resolve this case information they didn't attain and information to get to the particular already requirement what's required is simply specification as to the place to be searched and the object of the search and that's a den a fight here unquestionably p in was that the district court opinion said there was no th of them a violation here and it didn't reach the whole question of qualified immunity and it seemed to me seems to me that our good discussion this morning has illustrated the difficulty of navigating these very changing  and the technology that law enforcement is using to try to apprehend them and so you have the officers here that are caught in the middle of a changing of changing technology and they did the best they could they didn't just avoid the court altogether they submitted a fairly detailed application indeed there are any where we have denied qualified immunity in a case where the district court actually found all the defendants on the merits i mean that would be quite quite a step i'm just not where of cases you have done this but these officers are trained to do they know what exactly the requirements are and i'm just wondering if the shifting times are of technology when officers are caught in the middle of them and don't have any clear guidelines and there are no clear guidelines here for state there was a claim under the maryland state constitution as well and so our preferred course the court affirmed the district court for the same reason that there wasn't a violation of the th amendment or of the maryland declaration of rights if we might not agree with you on that though the the general point i'm interested in is offices lack clear guidance because of swiftly changing technology isn't that under both leon and i'm qualified immunity situation where their hands not in front of violations and it's really not so much these premises we must be on red alert the next technology easily could be one that listens to every conversation that is in every own ignoring the conversations but only seeking one if they do all fashion surveillance sooner or later he's going to show up and so the question here though broader than that beyond the what officers are doing the best they can it is going to the rights of you were looking for someone in there simply just blank searched everything in this whole courthouse to get it st no different than if you lock the door every place looking for someone in there until you find the person you even know you just know that when well respectfully around again it's the device is not giving police any information so there's no invasion of privacy every every all but it seems every phone in that area read the rich every phone to it from that seal time practical effect is that police don't learn anything about any of those phones they only learn about the  our brief he says the only information i have is with respect to the target zone it's like a clock it tells the mother that signal is getting stronger and stronger and that's it and just briefly if i could conclude with respectfully i don't disagree with the purpose of  listening to every conversation in every home with no basis for thinking that anything like that occurred now we're not just accepting the offices on blind faith on this kind of matter in a suppression hearing this kind of thing would come up as what they listen to or what they did unless and then the validity of the search on the warrant would have been before a court damages in damages personally liable in damages on the basis of speculation and when they are without clear guides in standards and so what we're looking for what clear violations of unreasonable violations of clearly established law in one thousand nine hundred and three but the supreme court has said on reasonable violations of clearly established law what the heck is clearly you my colleagues have a lot of questions i haven't asked you and i just you would you agree that the question of particularity has nothing to do with what extraneous he was actually obtain that it only told them whether that specific target number was getting closer well if if you diverted all calls to that big tower that would be several cell phone numbers correct well i'm as looks like a clock and it will just tell you whether that one signal to that one phone is getting stronger or less strong and so that's why the discovery wasn't necessary in this case because what they were asking for discovery on were things like well what did the officers intend to do with this word or did they know that they were going to use a cell site simulator did they know that they think that this was only authorized in a pen register and those questions don't you know so you represented actually report that they example i'm here in the rain my phone is no used to the force tone you're telling me from the non target cell phone number phone number also was because the question is still did they define with particularly the place to be searched the target phone number and the object to be so it wasn't a place it was to divert every cell phone call searched the phone in this case and the item or the person to be c s which in this case was the data from mr andrews the data from anyone else's phone when they were seizing was that data that would reveal that phones location and thereby give them an opportunity last question what was the range of the false cap trapping of the pings from the false tower you that i believe is not in the record the order said without knocked on the door they obtained consent to go in they arrested him they didn't do any further search until they attend another search  to answer the questions with respect to the sufficiency and the execution of the warrant and its specificity i would direct the court to judge which dissent and united states versus packed with her she discusses this subject very eloquently warrant itself didn't list a bunch of other cell phone numbers what it did was it only listed cell phone number with one and the only cell phone for which there was probable cause to think probable cause that exists was with respect andrews not with respect to anybody and you think gone beyond the boundaries and started listening to other conversations or gaining information was private and couldn't otherwise be obtained then that would be beyond the scope of the p r i and that itself would give rise to a nine hundred and eighty three act but we don't have that here we have you or have problems of standing with respect and questions of pure supposition that it was the officers went beyond the scope of is a pen register order and then they salted with a few references to probable cause kind of floating in the air in the coax opinion which counsel hits reference of the court of appeals of maryland states that th start bashing out rules that oh yes it's ok officers to do this what we've done is open the door to say well you know when it comes to you for a minute right now as a rd party you won't even know you're being search