waters of the property after flashing your badge that they are there because of the fact that computers in that home are sending viruses to washington d c twenty three is in washington d c the nation's capital so that they are there to fix a problem and that they were seeking the authorization of the members of the family the captain the father of the house indicated hate you're thinking the computer will use the computer that my son uses for for college he has the computer and the a yes at that point they say well at that point how many was surprised why because when they just wanted the home nothing was mentioned about anything having to the witch up or no referee nothing was mentioned about anything having to do with any other get the guidelines for that and one of the guidelines your honor is basically whether the prosecutors somehow were misled by the agents when the case was filed and do you have is there any precedent out there that supports this notion that not disclosing evidence to the prosecutor that would reveal how it was how the evidence that does support  saying that had they not done that ruth's you would have a claim under either the fourth amendment and or by the theory because you weren't contesting at least as i understood your brief in the complaint and the way the by your honour's on the first set of claims regarding the search plaintiffs have never identified a case that would put beyond to bait in the language of the supreme court case that the stratagem used here was clearly beyond what the constitution allows for that reason alone the search claims were properly dismissed why's that oh your honor that's just because in order to prevail on the search planes they would have to not know you are in for the allegations in the complaint raise no indication that it was a virus that was interfering with an important function of the federal government or the government's ability to ask that you just thought it was somewhere in washington i think that's a fair reading of the complaint your honor indeed but i think just to get beyond the facts of the allegations in this case and the broader point is that i think it's a proposition that reasonable people could  pennsylvania supreme court which the third circuit approved of that ruse involve the following allegations officers investigating a murder go to a suspect and say i know you're having various significant financial difficulties i would like analysis of the allegations in this case and whether they truly constitute an emergency i think our position is just ask people in their everyday experience have experience with viruses is not seen as being in imminent harm that no one could turn down the proposition of someone coming in to help sex and we think that's different from the hypothetical however i think that there's an alternative grounds for a firman seer all the time in this question so if you disagree with me on the qualified immunity issues you wouldn't have to reach those questions if you instead concluded as the district court properly did that the plaintiffs in this case were on inquiry notice about the use of the ruse i for on october twenty third the day of the search in question or sometime during the next seven think to reach that conclusion you have to do so from first principles that would require you to conclude that no reasonable person conclude otherwise if we wanted to that's if we found you we thought even less seriousness it would be important to i'm sorry on the record simply doesn't reflect why it happened and i myself don't happen to know i don't think you can infer that it's because the government doubted its ability to prevail on the motion to dismiss moreover there could be sort of bad every two years but again that's not reflected in the record and i don't happen to know the details of the transfer but to get back to your honor's question about whether you want to say something about the fourth amendment question on the merits here we think under pearson versus callahan this would be a bad vehicle to do that in that case justice alito writing for the court says that when the factual allegations are unclear on the motion to dismiss and where there's no dispute about the  honor one reason why we think and if i could just finish up the files how much of time we think the best for this court to address the potentially difficult fourth amendment questions on the merits following a motion to suppress reka for better factual record understanding is that is true in all of those cases the evidence of the of the circumstances in which the evidence was acquired was withheld i believe that is the case you are but i would have to double check the cases in order to make sure that the whole question oh i'm sorry  person there's two types of cases rather one is in which the officer who violated the fourth amendment then goes on to make a probable cause determination for arrest in those cases the officer would know of the bases right and then i believe there are other cases involving some other decision maker going on to make i'm not sure cases focus on that aspect of the poirot if they don't address that issue then they're just not addressing the question of whether there might be a constitutional problem then inheritors in withholding from the magistrate judge who's supposed to make the decision the information that might already in a criminal prosecution we know the exclusionary rule applies of course when there is a prior fourth minute violation there's a question of what is the slope of the evidence that must be suppressed one of the questions that you want to have to answer there is if there's a follow on search blessed by a magistrate was the magistrate told of the four hundred violation because if they were not if they would not have granted that search warrant then all of the evidence flowing from that second search would also be tainted it must also be suppressed honor i think the answer from those circuit he says is no but i'm not sure they speak clearly in those terms they tend to focus on the fact that we're now in civil defense litigation but i think the ninth circuit and one of its footnotes makes clear that established law puts yawned constitutional bounds what happened here and we think that alone suffices for disposing the search claims i see i'm well over my time unless there are questions thank you