objects we've contested collectively the three computer restrictions that the probation office recommended so conditions eleven twelve and thirteen the reason for that is condition eleven actually the fines computers and computer related devices to include devices that connect to the internet and requires that he disclose his internet service providers his e mail accounts his passwords so even though that's a disclosure condition and in fact does relate to specifically his use of the internet and the conditions twelve is the computer search condition which of course i ncludes electronic gains and only other computer related devices that were defined and computer thirteen is the computer modern condition is if there were some evidence anything that he had used something that indicates that the internet actually played some significant role it's clear that he was using that he was using computer computer devices hard drives and things like that correct the fortunes for storage of data correct york action is that there isn't any direct evidence that he actually access the internet to this that's correct and what about what about the finding of the zip codes for example searching searching for people i mean in the old days you'd have to go down to the post office and pull up a great big book that list of streets i don't even know if the post office even has that book anymore well it's not it's not much of a stretch to say look it doesn't take anything at all to go find zip codes on the internet well it's really easy to find a lot of stuff on the internet your honor with respect to the zip codes it's not clear whether or not those were obtained through an independent search of the internet or if those were taken as part of the skimming process because if the individuals who put in their credit card to the facilitate this in the future take away that temptation from him well you know there is other crime that you reference actually was his using a credit card to purchase items there's nothing that indicated that he in fact used the scammer that he created that he simply use a credit card and i create this these restrictions don't preclude the use of the internet it's a disclosure only so  he has unrestricted access to the internet he simply has to tell the probation officer that's correct he is able to use the internet but as part of the the computer monitoring condition for example and the search condition monitoring conditions which would and again it's not the fine here other than he has to comply with the computer monitoring program but presumably and we know this from various cases that  what was part being targeted here was his access to the internet so my thing astrally different with regard to disclosure on the one hand and munching on the other because at least disclosure of some things he did use computers to some degree in his crime close the his possession or use of a computer or not i we would quibble with the disclosure of requirement with respect to computers and computer related devices as a general matter the issue then becomes as it's defined in these there that indicates and use of the internet or now i think there are various ways that one can or the various other things that one can use a computer for of course but here if one goes through the the government where all this information was found it sealed excerpts refuse to fifty five to sixty five actually lists where all of this information was and it's essentially just a list of flash flash drives c d s and skimming device that's where this how do you ensure that you broadly capture technology that you don't even know exists at the time you're sentencing well and this course decision in kinsey address that in some ways it is difficult to kind of predict what technology will be down the road of course the law requires that the least restrictive condition be imposed and so the probation office the government can always come back and say once he's released while we're aware of these technological advances in fact under probation officer is obligated to pay attention to any technological advances and make recommendations as to what would be appropriate at that time we've seen a number good morning may please the court christina schaefer united states of america this case is about whether district court plainly erred in imposing disclosure search and monitoring conditions on a computer where that defendant used computers and it can be gleaned from the record the internet in committing his crime a was have been clean and be found by anybody was in it did they find this effect your honor it can be gleaned from the record this was found this is this was printed information or this was found on out on a hard drive i believe this was handwritten information or and or printed i don't know that that's a level of specificity is in the p that is different from information that can be taken from a skimming device and i think it's important that the crime here was not as simple as to find it makes it to be indeed the p s r of the probation office found it to be sophisticated and quite involved defendant skimming devices at gas station palms he then took those those skimming devices connected to his computer pulled the data off the computer use computer software made  hard off the computer he took the data from the skimming devices connected to his can skimming device gets connected to the computer that data gets pulled off the skimming device into the computer stored on the computer for later use and then he connects to re and coding device the computer rian coding software on the computer and that software helps to make fake credit cards now use those credit cards and the district court again has his criminal history before him you can use fake credit cards at gas station pumps where you would need some and zip code you could also use those fake credit cards in order to get new credit cards in order to call that credit card company say this is my social security number this is my name this  this would be outside the record your honor but it would be my experience in these cases would be that it's software that you either can download from online or you can purchase that more but in this day and age more likely download from online and that really goes to this court's decision in that's we this the district court does not close the barn door just on substantially identical crimes therefore the fact that he may not have specific we use the internet in this case which the government smith that he most likely did but even if he had not this court and the district court needs to look forward to how does this defendant commit this crime again in the future is it reasonably related to preventing this crime stiffened him from committing this crime in the future and the government would submit that it does in the future this software would be downloaded from on line in the future when the defenders release three years from now this data is data that you find online and this court's decision and dare i believes instructive in bear it's a defendant who ran a small pond shop he has sold some guns and he kept that information in paper records indeed the dissen because these cases are fairly routine your honor that you see they did not limit their digital devices to cell phones they impose computer monitoring conditions and indeed computer monitoring conditions that were negotiated area is plain error as to whether there was a violation of a requirement it's acquirement is that your do you have an articulated nexus then the question is when the air is plain well your honor the question is whether or not the condition impose is reasonably related to preventing this defendant to a sentencing goal and in this case preventing recidivism and protecting the public the district court made a number of very specific findings in this case about defendant's risk of potential for us that it is them about the seriousness of the defendant's crime the p s r also indicates reasons and the recommendation letter indicates reasons for imposing these conditions looking forward this district court judge who is a very that the these crimes create a lot of economic harm to the community at the societal interest in protecting the public from future crimes of this defendant it impose these conditions as reasonably related to that release where these  conditions proffered to the defense before before the hearing they were your honor ok were there any written objections there there were a number of written objections by the defense counsel retained defense counsel in this case that had nothing to do with those three conditions  they all stipulated on record when the judge said yes your honor the conditions no objection yes your honor and i would stress that this district court judge is very thorough he is not a district court judge he would just let things through and pas t just have his eyes glaze over in these cases and i think it's a bit of a red herring that the crime involved internet use is not a requirement for the imposition of computer monitoring conditions that is part of the decision of the condition that banned internet use all together now there is no such condition in this case the district court never imposes a condition banning internet use the banning computer use without prior approval by the office there is a mere disclosure condition that this court is clearly held affects no real rights there is a search condition that after bear this court says that post sampson the supreme court's decision in sampson there cannot be a reasonable objection to a search condition that includes computers and then there is a computer monitoring condition and that computer monitoring condition does not require as this court found in hasan as this court cited with approval and bear does not actually require that the computer that the defendant have hughs the internet in committing his crime what you understand computer minor changes mean if it's not a serious not a search on  mean it means i actually have the computer monitoring conditions from the creation office as they stand right here they would be outside the record because they would not submitted by the defendant just give me an idea of what modern train means that doesn't mean just closing it doesn't mean searching what does it mean there are it allows the it essentially packages the information in a way that's easier for the probation office to view so it sends weekly reports to the search that is that is an interesting question i mean they could we could if we were allowed if the government is allowed under bets to go search the defendant any time the government feels like it and that includes the computers which is the court's decision and bets one can wonder why computer monitoring would not be also included in that computer monitoring is more frequent then the government could muster up the resources to go search and i think that would be  one practical difference between the two for example there are differences between you know search warrant and wire wire requirements for example but in this case computer monitoring there's no indication that use the computer that's enough and then we'd be done then it depends on obviously the findings the court makes and the justification given and whether that would be sufficient to just record says for example it's pretty clear i must use the internet to do this it's clear if it goes back for for recent think the government has the burden of a sabotaging the necessity of the condition and has produced evidence justifying the need in this case for restrictions on internet use and if i could  about if you agree that they that that search condition would include searching the computer a search condition as written here include searching the can do the computer computer modern cooking that is such a big word you're not challenging that monitoring there essentially maintains a few of everything that happens on the computer and the probation office doesn't has not shared with us the particular program that they use my understanding is the contractor that they use it involves keystroke monitoring it does involve taking screen grabs of what's happening on the computer so everything that someone is doing on the computer whether the defendant or anyone else in the home who's using the only that's correct though which is why some would say so what's the difference between that and the circulation and that's why i think it it's used differently the search condition allows a probation officer to go in and actually look anything one does on the internets which brings in sales involve my train our search conditioner and to see the actual condition in sales was it was  use and requiring the defense pay for its record in the defense to keep a daily log of his internet activity unrelated to his employments and the d c circuit struck that condition on planar saying that was  nature of the crime suggest that even if he didn't use the internet in this case which is highly unlikely that it would if he were to return to try to do this again that it's more likely than not that he would use the computer the internet in the future it's clear that the internet would facilitate it would speed up his process for looking for names credit card addresses billy information and so forth your art all they need to do is if it's the same crime