here do reflect communications with all their e mails between right holder johnny the first of which is i sent a message to joel the second of which as i thought you were going to wait until tomorrow to send a message to joel and the third of which references a fax from joel and also describes ryan holds efforts to contact joel by phone joel hall in this case by phone if that's defined it suggests the magistrate intended to limit that provision simply to the direct communications themselves the magistrate could have done so it doesn't it says reflects communications in the provision of issue it doesn't say the communications themselves moreover looking at the w and there's no express statement in there as there is for johnny that they have probable cause to arrest him but of course they're not attempting to arrest right hold at the time that's important to recognize that search warrants unlike arrest warrants focusing on the things not the people there if there was reasonable to believe that there would be evidence on anywhere in the house including right holds possessions as long as there was probable cause to believe the evidence would be there it's irrelevant that it's wrong to hold so that they did not have any well we don't need to wrecked evidence that she was aware and i think the circumstances of her delivery demonstrate that she was aware first of all it's unlikely that a person associated with the johnny would deliver this package if the person wasn't aware because it easily traced back will to that person in fact that's what happened in this case they were able to trace the person who came in back to johnny and so it's unlikely you would do that moreover these weren't just envelopes that had nothing on them they said urgent legal what was wrong with judge hatters resolution i was saying that once they were into her laptop and into her e mail account that if the government thought it needed to go into the contents of that laptop they should have gone back and sought a supplemental or separate warrant so they could address the issues the judge freedman's is  raising well i'm not sure at the outset how it would cure the problem i would expect in the same circumstance that the defendant would argue that the initial fight that we saw on the computer or whatever we saw there with the fruit of the poisonous anything driving that would be the fruit of the point well he didn't seem to that didn't seem to be what george had or was saying and he said that he assumed that it was ok to get into the laptop as he said it isn't the he wasn't concerned about the fact that because the computer was there there were some apparently i wonder trying to understand what he was saying that it was ok to open up the laptop at once soon and am seen that there might be evidence of her involvement in this they should have stopped sealed the situation and sought a separate warrant well i think regionalism the execution of the warrant is just bad and i do think if you have information it's reasonable to me that the evidence would be there there is  offense even if she wasn't it was reasonable look there for the evidence in question even if she wasn't a participant in this crime these weren't e mails that we're looking at that may be true but the problem is then you're coming back to where to started out with which was share and it's it says records documents materials which reflect communications with the named individuals through the two companies officers of t companies reflect i didn't do criminal work i did civil discovery and we always to give not son anything related to and blah blah blah and you get this open ended language which basically  opens up in the entirety of the files to the questioner or to the you know the seeker without any limits on it so what does it says which reflect communications what communications about why does it not have to be more particular why do you think as to play particularities you have the introductory language of what i am sort of use these which reflects the crime of extortion in this case and you have the subject matter which is the  position would be that it's within the warrant if it's between johnny and a con and it's about communications between john and you know let's suppose that what the e mail said is that she writes to her husband she says i called joell and told him that he'd better take prompt action and the subject of what was in the sealed envelopes that i handed off is that within the scope of the it's not a communication from her from chris to them it's her communication but it's her communication with pay com i mean i guess that's what i'm saying so you're saying reflect communications with it doesn't now there in her computer assuming that's relevant and you know look the that's one of the difficulties of this case is once you're in the piers you can get anything that you can look at anything that's on the a criminal johnnie we weren't going into the e mail between for example her and her mother at least that's not what is an issue here e mails between her and some third party and they could have had a communication about the delivery and it not incriminate her simply incriminating johnn relating to the delivery and it would be reasonable expect there would have been a communication about the delivery in this case they were dropped off an eighth and by the twelfth which was the date in which it had to be responded to pay him hadn't responded and in fact johnny had to send a follow up email saying did you know did you receive the package i suspect sent by special courier even if it hadn't been reinhold who delivered this if it had simply been a courier service it would be reasonable in that context to expect that they would have had communications about it right to our mother but in a broad sense it relates to communications with someone from take on well i think ultimately the question of whether the reasonable execution of the war and that sort of sense to look in that place for the information and the scenario that you gave it probably wouldn't be reasonable because unless you had the how can you avoid seeming once you're into the computer and you're looking at the e mails are you saying that the restrict this warrant somehow restricts once you're in to we're streaming it's her computer now whether or not they had to accept her word or not i'm deciding not to say let's assume they're in her computer and judge friedman's hypothetical it shows up address the address she is doesn't show any indication that chris was johnny was part of the communication but he's clearly in the content of the e mail under your reading of five  read all the emails and all data basically in her computer there is no probable cause to search her computer even if this was their problem but if the thrust of the warrant is judge fisher his computers hard drives computer disk cetera and there are husband and wife they share a common abode and whether they're if he's got his laptop with him and she's got her laptop which is in fact apparently what happened he had his laptop over in switzerland trying to find a free wife and she's writing to him and talking about the very subject she could have been an innocent party and he was simply saying i'm over that but they didn't know what was going to be they didn't know what was going to be on his computer because that's what i think that that parameters of the search have to be defined by the evidence that they had and once they got once they start that that computer that she used once they opened it and saw that there were things in there that they did not have probable cause to search they should have gone and gotten another warrant  is it that they didn't have probable cause they did not seem to go on the assumption which i think is legally wrong and but maybe you can cite me to case that supports that that in order to continue with the search where there's incriminating evidence w legitimate communication this communication reflects a communication of chris's johnny with the name person at paco that was within the scope of the war  so happens that now establishes she also is involved in the in the scheme but that doesn't suddenly turn what is legitimately within the scope as communications which reflect or emails which reflect communications her husband had with pay com that they did have probable cause for that and as if it so turns out unfortunately for her that she also was party to it and she winds up getting indicted for her now for her part in the scheme i don't understand how that invalidates the the warrant or the search for my position ishall search that they did not have probable cause to search her computer because they did but you keep saying they didn't probable cause to search for a computer that's not it's well established that they don't have to accept her statement that's my computer hands off they didn't know laptop that he had taken with him and during that time period from the eighty's to the twenty second he had a council this started strangers it's husband and wife don't you expect that when the husband's overseas he's communicating with his wife and therefore her computer if it's entirely entirely hers might have communications from him to her that would reflect the communications he had with a com but i think important did not say to search for communications between a johnny and reinhold the warrant only it didn't say that at all that the crew it didn't put any limits on of the said any communicate any computer media you can search all computers in saying i have had a communication with a com well why would they have to have probable cause that she was him how involved in the scheme well i think it first i think it's merely speculation for them to take the position that it could have been used by johnny or could have contained evidence of a chinese crime he didn't even have to have access to all he had to do was have her e mail address and i could have been by you know some the other guy the guy who spilled the beans or that he was you know had given him the customer information that guy could have communicated to that even the mail address it could have been a drop address right let's even if this court and were to find that there was probable cause to search that window computer then they still couldn't search every single thing in it it's it's like a room that's filled it's like a ten by twelve by documents materials reflecting was the troublesome word it's an overbroad interpretation to include his communications with his wife within that it was not the e mail and i spoke to zones only yesterday and things were going well that does refer to the well i think there's a couple things the word reflecting is far from precise and their own investigation gave them all the information they needed to make they should have said if they had probable cause that they wanted e mails i chat's faxes from a johnny to anyone else you know reflecting it disgusting referring to relating to they had the ability in the way they conducted this search and in the language that they chose to precisely define the search and they didn't do it they use communication that was on the e mail was actually crystal johny typing to somebody else is that it well i think there are two problems i think that the use of the language that they use and the interpretation they have is overbroad and that they precisely focus on her computer with all the evidence they have and ask for permission and that extra layer i think is what by the way on your twenty a j letter even though  i think we appreciate being told about the good faith issue not being raised on the first time in reply the ninth circuit does have that rule but the case you cite happens in fact to be a seventh circuit case not a i would just simply point out that it is clear in this case that they were not looking directly for the just the communications themselves they already have the communications they were there when the extortion requests were made they were looking for evidence to tie johnny to the crime and warrant is that taken from the f b i manual there's a very long detailed list of say what you know and justification for why it's necessary to the potentially seize the various media and then it talks has these various steps that the officers are supposed to follow as they go through the search and if they have to establish a need to take the computers and media off offsite you know where all  of that language comes from i believe this language our office has language really is for computer search describing what what is going to be done if you're going to decide make a decision to take the computer off site and i believe that the language in this case is at least similar a computer database to be searched and put and seized i think that's correct because you can make the determination at the time whether you're going to need to be able to search it there or whether you're going to have to take it somewhere else to search it and i do think the language in the cases is