spatafore raised both suppression and sufficiency challenges to his conviction and i plan to address those issues in that order unless the court is otherwise inclined first as to suppression mr spatafore had standing to challenge the warrantless search of the grand avenue property and by standing of course i mean that he had a subjective expectation of privacy in that home and that that expectation was one that society is prepared to recognize reasonable looking starting simply with the declarations of mr spatafore that's at two o five and his girlfriend christy garrett that's at sixty six dollars sixty seven cents those declarations established that he was an overnight guest at a minimum overnight guest and under the minnesota v olson which is the case the district court notably did not mention in its standing ruling overnight guests that this is quote alone enough to confer standing for th amendment purposes counsel so mean we agree with you and i'm just speaking for myself but assuming that we agree with you that there is standing why wasn't fair sufficient district court relied on here and one i would refer to as your classic fire exit in c established by michigan v tyler which itself has two parts the st being that the firefighter you know a burning building officer said the fire was quote extinguished by the time he got there the nd part of the the exigency has dissipated simply because the well there is not necessarily your honor there is a nd part to tyler which says that fire officials may remain on the scene for a reasonable amount of time to investigate its cause only far officials it's i guess there are cases saying fire officials and police are not differentiated for purposes of the th amendment here so there may be we would grant caused for anyone to come and investigate the cause of the fire but again at year one hundred and sixty four of the far investigation i would argue not under the facts of this case that tyler clippard eggs didn't see a rose most often in cases where there was some suspicion of arson and it was very clear that they were standing there to figure staying on the premises to figure out what the cause was here just premises to ascertain whether there was further danger of combustion i would argue that that constitutes a separate existence see for which there must be an independent showing of exigency or emergency and i say you rely on upon to support the argument that there has to be a separate separate exigency in those circumstances i think as in as the fire exit agency is set forth in tyler itself and it's reaffirming cases like missouri versus m ely it's mentioned the fire exit engine c is limited to putting out the fire investigating its cause now there may be a separate emergency which has to rise to the level of preventing a threat to human life or serious at least serious bodily injury and i think the case is the government relies on there are explosions there are reports of people you know with amputated fingers there are reports of bleeding people who haven't been discovered at the scene appreciate the it's a little difficult though to start parsing these events in that way when they happened in the middle of the night and when you're dealing with st a fire that was not just a small fire but one that could have easily engulf the entire house but then toxic chemical was within the house that presented a serious risk danger to the rest of the house and possibly to other people and so i find it difficult to kind of be spicing up the events of what really was a continuous episode involving a fairly dangerous situation i think that this is based on the fire department own log there's that dispatch log at you are one hundred and seventy seven of events you know the fire chief who you saw on the video he said by a certain point two hundred and fourteen quote the incidence terminated on the fire side they're go you know hand it over and take off it is not until after that that captain valdivia is about to another section of the fire department the correct i think he was heading off to riverside sheriff's department at that point bell was a request i believe by riverside sheriff's department is that your recollection of the record that when the police were going through the house there were no far off there were no firefighters there is that your recollection of the record the war is based upon the entry of captain velvia who is a fire but i'm asking you in the entire record is it your recollection of the record that when the police went through the house there were no firefighters on site no you're on i believe that the st it's not clear of officer went with captain valdivia the st time or maybe a nd separate time but i believe that there were fire personnel on the site so is it correct to say that the even had been handed off to the police if there was still firefighters on i think i don't think that's necessarily the test for an existence but that's the point you made well i think it's one factor if there is indeed a fire related exigency we should defer to the conclusion of the fire chief that the fire exit in c has abated and if there is elaborate picture that the government paints in its brief came from the trial testimony not from the suppression but that if hazmat has an emergency response there are indications of that response  st i would say haste they don't wait three hours to show up at the scene they were consulting their early on and did not come and were not asked to come nd in these other cases from the circuit not of circuit there's usually an evacuation of neighbors but also of the personnel itself the people in those cases see something that looks like a bomb and everyone even the st responders evacuated so i think those are sort of the indications of  exigency that we're looking for in some of the supposed since you mention the bomb suppose there was a bomb in the garage and start a fire the extinguish the fire but they don't know if there are other bombs elsewhere in the house would it be exigent circumstances for the fire department to go through other parts of the house to make sure there aren't other bombs there i think it depends on the circumstances if they took i think the indications of are objective so if they called the bomb squad everyone else evacuated the bomb squad came the robot came you know that was all done quickly the neighbors were told to evacuate that could well be an accident see but i think you have to look at what objective we happened and here you see on the video you see from the declaration of the girlfriend that everyone's proceeding about their business certainly they're putting out a fire that fire that only took about fifteen minutes but after that there is no sense of this is a that there are two parts of that statute but what mr spatafore was charged with was using or maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing a controlled substance the government since they do not really focus on using at trial i will turn to the maintaining portion of that and maintaining as that very word connotes involved the sense of control over time in the jury instruction reflects this by saying there is some direction of the activities and the people in that place there over a period of time and that this single sign that the government's relying on about the dogs coming into this room doesn't meet that standard also we've argued that they didn't sufficiently at least show his intent to manufacture there certainly the reasonable jury could infer that he was living in the midst of this lab and i don't think that was really contested at trial but as to his intent there isn't permissible under the exigency exception to the th amendment in light of the explosions that rocked the ground home the fire that engulfed the garage and threatened the rest of the home and the sprawling drug laboratory that was found in three rooms of the particularly butane honey oil laboratories are he outlined that the use of dangerous gases such as propane butane in these type of laboratories soaking the butane honey oil products and flammable solvents and the use of an extra ction process that involves heat and pressurized vessels all contribute to risk of explosion and fire council i don't think opposing counsel takes issue with the fact that the firefighters weren't is was justified she takes issue with the fact that the police officers the search there after her contention is that the fire was suppressed so what's your response to her challenge to the entry of the police officers officers intent in a company him into the grand home i would submit that the only reason they kept invalid review was call to the scene was in order to determine that there were no other dangers that the grand home posed particularly in light of the fact that there were multiple explosions reported at the property the fire was significant and there were there was an active drug laboratory in the grand home with dangerous chemicals involved and dangerous gases and captain valdivia as the fire as cal fires hazmat expert knew exactly how dangerous this was the function of the police officials there i believe from the cal fire log your honor the police officials served multiple functions they were there for onsite traffic control they were also there to assist the firefighters as needed i believe they were there as well to investigate the cause of the fire to potentially see if there was a criminal investigation involved which was that for purposes of the criminal investigation and i believe that was why investigator plan mirror was there as w captain devious subsequently a company law enforcement officers while wearing an air monitoring devices in order to check the air quality and confirm the nature of the lap inside particularly whether it involved  materials that could pose a danger to life property or the environment is it your position that this is still part of the exigent circumstances yes you're on well absolutely the fact that there was an active drug laboratory in the home the fact that this drug laboratory involved the use of dangerous chemicals and dangerous gases and that there was an explosion that decimated the garage and threatened the rest of the home means that the chemicals present at the home still posed a danger to anybody going in and out of law enforcement officers need to be present for their portion of captain devious or it's unclear why law and in fact twenty four hours after the fire had already been put out the home still posed a danger to people going in as the trial transcript showed with the mr to be you know who had his hazmat suit blown off and his face mask destroyed and one of metal canister exploded is there a time limit for existence circumstances mr spatafore is counsel suggest that there was an exit circumstances because there was a time gap of you know what it was two hours or so before the hazmat team went in it i would argue that it depends on the circumstances your honor at some point it doesn't become reasonable for law enforcement to enter a property without a warrant as i  think the supreme court held in clifford but in this case it was absolutely eminently reasonable for the hazmat team to enter three hours only three hours after the fire had been put out captain devious declaration and the district court found that the caption arrived cal fire personnel were still working on the scene there were no active flames but the absence of an active fire does not mean that exit in see has abated and does not mean that the firefighting function has terminated that would be a narrow view of the firefighting function in this situation so council do you take issue with opposing counsel's representation that kept in bad media notation that the fire was out and the investigation was turned over to law enforcement do you take issue with that representation that he made that note in his l take issue with the representation that there were no and i wasn't entirely clear but i take issue with representation that there were no cal fire personnel at the scene absolutely but her point was that it had changed from a far investigation a criminal investigation when it was turned over when captain bad devean noted that it was turned over to law enforcement which your response to that i as a nation i absolutely do take issue with the fact that it w the implication that this was changed from my fire investigation into a criminal investigation the fire team clearly and i believe the district court noted this there are two functions chief davis was responsible for the actual act fire captain valdivia was the hazmat expert for cal fire and he was responsible for except for assessing the scene for hazardous materials they served different functions they had to different levels of expertise to say wasn't necessary at all for the criminal investigation if the law if law enforcement needed a warrant to get into the grand home they could have easily relied on the fact that explosions had destroyed the garage there was a fire in the house in plain view in the garage where multiple five gallon propane canisters and the st responders who had entered the home and seen the drug lab inside the home reported that there was an active drug laboratory in three rooms of the ground home that would have been more than sufficient to get the warrant captioned was there soley to assess the scene to see if it posed any media dangers to people going in and see if the hazardous if there was a hazardous environment inside the grand home could you  address the maintaining portion of the merits of the case absolutely o so the position of the government the government presented evidence on four pieces the government presented evidence on four points to demonstrate that the defendant intentionally used or maintained the grand home for the purposes of manufacturing drugs the defendant was the sole resident and caretaker of the grand home he admitted this any survey that he sent he's had bills posted on the wall of the master bedroom that range from april to october th seen the defendant opened utilities and his name at the grand home on tobar two thousand and sixteen almost a full year before the home exploded on november rd two thousand and seventeen the utility payments were not insignificant in july i believe in july september and october are now in july august and september the defendant paid close to six hundred dollars in utility payments for the ground home all of this shows that he was maintaining the grant home for the purposes of manufacturing drugs his possessions in addition were not discretely contained in one location they were scattered throughout the home and they were intermingled with drug equipment in the master bedroom bathroom he had for jars of honey oil underneath the kitchen sink in the hallway to the home he had an off road motorcycle in the garage that exploded there was a nd motorcycle that was completely  destroyed in bedrooms three where there were nine to ten trash bags of marijuana in addition to a vacuum oven that's used to burn off butane honey oil product the defendant had his motorcycle booze tucked right underneath the vacuum oven next to twenty ounce butane can canisters in the kitchen where there were a number over dozens of jars containing honey oil and containers containing powdered powder c the defendant had his dog's medication and had a bill for his dogs dogs visit to the vet outside right next to the outside on the patio right next to where his dog food bowls were was a nother metal canister containing t h c in light of all this evidence and in light of the fact that there was a note on the bedroom one door that said door will not lauch strap twenty finish prevent dog entry indicating that the defendant knew exactly what was in the bedroom put a note up there to warn anybody else who might be in the lab who was working with him to maintain the slab to latch the door specifically because it posed a danger of opening and letting his rottweilers into the room for all of these reasons the government would submit that the the evidence the government presented was more than sufficient to convict the defendant of maintaining the grant home for the to turn back to the suppression issue your honor had a question about the participation of the riverside sheriff's office in hazmat arrival and walk through of the scene and i think the key evidence on this point the government has said that oh it's improbable that they would use hazmat here sort of as a stalking horse to get into the house and obtain information for a warrant but at  seventy seven that's the fire dispatch log at two hundred and fourteen dollars that's when the chief we learn is be thirteen be the chief says incident terminated on fire side and thirteen be available that engine is now available at two hundred and twenty seven dollars areso it is riverside sheriff's office request hazmat team recommit so it was indeed the riverside sheriff's office that asked hazmat to come since the fire has been mostly put out that was done by about twelve fifteen am the government says certainly why would they do this the government there was sheriffs could have gotten a warrant but the fact here is that they did not get a warran