this before we go into our questions sort of a foregone conclusion that that's the next things that's going to happen after you read this we're going to collapse into question and he then hand them the piece of paper you see on the video officer saying about her talking required that you indicate you read these warnings these warnings are and can't shouldn't be diminished by the fact that they're on t v and people think that they know what they are they're very specific and the court in miranda recognizes the inherent coercive circumstances of being interrogated by the police specifically in this situation after four hours being locked in a small room and recognizing the court recognizing how horrific those circumstances are have instructed in the miranda decision that an individual before they give up their right to remain you can type things that's the thing you're happy with what's the paper actually you're not contesting they think the paper itself with the question is did he ever read it and did the understand argument is that it was in virtually impossible for him to have read it and he clearly didn't understand it and then just following up on and i guess i'm wondering what the lawyer you're wanting us to hold that there has to be a specific amount of follow the miranda decision in the decisions that interpret miranda as to what does it mean to knowingly and intelligently and voluntarily waive your your rights and i don't know there is a bright line rule and how much time there is the bottom line is form there's not a problem with that unless they can't understand it unless there's some indication they can read in this case we're not we're not arguing that he doesn't know how to read or are we didn't have a chance to read if you look at that video i don't care how sophisticated your education are you  i don't maybe you don't want to come up with a specific time but there is a tie that is a requirement that's what i'm trying to yes i agree i think that's fair at a minimum to be some indication that there was time for an individual to actually read them understand them and appreciate the nature and gravity of the rights that they were waiting and we did the video ok but and i appreciate that but i'm wondering if you have any case support for that proposition getting to a support that says you need to there needs to be a certain amount of time that the defendant can read and then whatever whatever i have i don't i don't i don't have  sort of a commonsense argument that at some point at a minimum somebody have an opportunity to read it but then really what the court's concern is did he understand it and there's no indication to show that he did understand we have to look  is a slow process or slow reader given what you see on the video and given the test that you did then and is learning capacity could he possibly have read those warnings and understand and understood though if we if she spoke to a specific issue she was an expert but even without that because the truth is somebody educated in a great reader and a fast reader could not who was unfamiliar as there's no evidence  i hope that you all watch the video that you will because again i think it will be very clear that that's not something that the court is willing to tolerate as far as what's acceptable for miranda and if another question regarding  take that permission for the agents to come in and check on the children welfare checks and so that provision of a welfare check why wouldn't that include happy how the welfare of the kids are and one of the ways you answer how the welfare is you look at the bedroom and see if it's filthy or not but they already done that they'd already done a well known couple how to make god legal that wasn't that a wasn't that more protective sweep to see it done no they d already they were looking for the kid they did a welfare check and a protective suite at the same time they got the kid they got them both day they got all the adults sequestered into a room there was no reason at that point that they couldn't get a warrant or are you saying that they went that the officers had gone to their bedroom not for the purpose of seeing if there was some low working person in there with a date going into the bedroom to see if it was clean and center and so forth i don't think that was what blackford answered they say we're going to do a welfare check and he begged them to come in they come in and they do the welfare checks that doesn't doesn't give them the basis to do a warrant to search for evidence and that's exactly what they do when they go to the bedroom to his bedroom with the children and they get that there's no argument that it's not just fall so there's nothing about the welfare check that allows that's not an exception to the war requirement for that search for e you thank such as the video does of the court of appeals judges have the same with gordie by law and looking for the cases of what you know that says that we have  substitute our judgment for the finding that the prof court made and for example in this video she's talking about so there you have the video to wait three evidence for you with regard to the miranda waiver it's all the court also considers the totality of the circumstances it's not just looking at the video and isolated in isolation when the form was given to blacks for this later portion in the video where black fruit is able to correct the officers if they get something wrong every single law enforcement officer that testified stated that they had experience interviewing people with mental disabilities at no point did black single you're not sure you're not arguing that the later incidents was my correct and illegal or an unconstitutional act by the officers i mean if the initial act findings in this case and part of what the district court found as to why blackburn did knowingly and intelligently waived his rights was because during the apportions of the video when you're able to observe him figure able to observe how he's he's interacting with law enforcement if detectives say bob said something that was incorrect blackburn was correct or there portions of the video where i agent green is showing him different pictures in black or is actually writing on those pictures while agent gra but all of the all of the things that the district court relied on in this case are supported by the record additionally kieffer or filled one of the individuals that will stay in the home testified that she had a month to interview to interact with blackburn be standing up at a podium as he is initially and by statements and there should clearly have the opportunity to see the law enforcement good advise him that he didn't have to talk to them and that he could stop talking at any point knowingly and intelligently waive them he was given the miranda form that adequately contained all of the rights on it he was given the opportunity to review if there was nothing in blackburn's behavior that would have indicated to the officers at th issue which you're going to regret yes and i'm happy to move there unless the court has any additional questions on the miranda waiver so with regard to the fourth amendment issue it's important to remember that suppression is not a personal individual right when there is evidence that law enforcement engaged in reckless deliberate and grossly negligent disregard for the fourth amendment that clearly did not happen here what happens if law enforcement shows a better residence where they're looking for a young minor child who they know has been sexually abused blackburn answers the door he consents to let them into the home immediately they identified the victim that they've been looking for coming down the stairs every law enforcement officer that testified stated as soon as they saw the victim coming down the stairs they knew this is a big down and each one of them also suspected that blackburn was the perpetrator based on his physical stature because that matched that of the perpetrator in one of the videos or field and the law enforcement officers all testified that everyone was being fully compliant law enforcement not was not being overly aggressive they were being calm or phil who is not a law enforcemen what i think that blackburn is molesting the children she relays a story that had happened a couple days prior and also said he's lying to you about the phone he has one special agent all to madonna then oh you seen him with it and she replied yes all show you know pointed special agent all to mcdonalds ask her to go get the phone has simply walked up stairs to what appeared to be a children's bedroom grabbed the phone gave it a special agent that whenever he gives people these consent to search for him if it even appears to be a close call then he doesn't bother with the form he actually stop and get a search he stops to get a search warrant there is no evidence in the record that at that point in time it would have been known to the officers that special agent ultimate onil was going into blackburn's room that's something that they found out later killed below your emphasis on consent i mean are you suggesting that consen to the bedroom again was not part of the welfare check even if it wasn't part of the welfare checks or that there was nothing obvious to special agent them at all at that time having who  knew had spent the night in that residence and had been there for several days did not have a lawful right of access to go up to that bedroom which appeared to be the children so ultimately we assess whether or not the officer actions in this case are reasonable and they're kind of different overlapping legal theories that tell us that in this case it wasn't paid well help me understand the legal change and there are your legal theories what's the chain we start followed up the stairs because she said she was going to show her where the phone was so she goes upstairs she doesn't actually go into the bedroom she's not searching through the bedroom and so are position is that at that point reason incentives to do the search apart from the investigative source for example in the on the ship or they didn't want to ship dangerous packages in this case  private interest in getting blackburn out of the house because she knew that she was molesting the children and just ultimately we would rely on the inevitable discovery doctrine in this case if the court has no further questions it does not appear so