him and he was playing video games and behind him the dog was chewing on a red pen and there was this great big red stain on a four hundred dollar will harp that i had bought two weeks ago for his room and officer that she heard sounds what she perceived to be the sound of a woman being hit nobody asked her what that meant you know last night when i was  baton made and clothes on the floor and dad mr broths said to him i'm not surprised to see you she was very that my husband immediately assumed they had been having sex the that what occurred wasn't consistent with domestic abuse while i may have been possible that there's some other innocent explanation but certainly the adjacent gas thought someone was being beat and told our lease that well isn't that enough for probable cause because probable cause generally means more likely than not that there's evidence of a crime they're putting aside whether the is there any legal authority in our circuit or any other circuit on those facts where the police have a complaining witness who says i think someone's being beaten or someone's in danger inside where he had certainly he had a right in a duty to investigate that and he did not have a right to go in there because there were plenty of ways to resolve the issue of whether this woman had then heard without is there any case law that says that if a policeman has probable cause to think so more than a hotel room has beaten their spouse that they can't facts still meet the legal standard deputy press had a girl five report from a hotel gas and inner join a room that she had heard what sounded like a domestic disturbance a domestic assault and a nature that reported significant whatever that gas heard was significant enough to prompt her to not only call nine one one but meet the police in the lobby of the hotel once you arrive at the hotel room and not deputy kharab heard a male voice through the door say honey i think someone is here a attackers and common sense tells us why that might be so if they are left alone at some later point with their attackers there may be retribution for report to police so the fact that the saying is there anything illegal here that depressed testified that he asked that question because he was concerned about whether there may be any weapons in the room that one of the parties may use to harm the other party it was no evidence in the record to suggest  correctly the the argument goes it was in circumstances author writes the officer to enter the room correct then he had the right to chitchat to ask questions to make sure that the female in the room indeed safe correct and he had the right to ask do you have anything you illegal in the room he had to write down questions that were reasonably related to his purpose i'm with you there then the guy says there's marijuana in the dresser correct what gives him the right to look in the wallet on top of the dresser he asked the defendant for consent to search for marijuana was that what was it exactly i thought i thought the guy said  that maybe the legal conclusion that wasn't the isn't my rendition is correct the guy said the marijuana was in the dresser and then the officer said may i go get it yes you can search for marijuana search for marijuana or search for it marijuana do you have the exact quote h accept the get statement that a woman may be being beaten that exigent but how do you address appellants arguments to the effect that the least intrusive accidents there circumstances and warranted his injury to the hotel room first the defendant as as appellant were cited told deputy press quote i knew you were coming she was very loud and i think that's a critical fact because it confirms a disturbance together with the hotel guests report it was reasonable for deputy purab to infer from this statement there may have been an altercation in addition the woman ms bankets was not present when the defendant opened the door  there was a woman in the room in the shower again a woman in the bathroom is consistent with an altercation was reasonable with a lot of things as it is but i think it is also if you're if you're if there had been a domestic assault in the room it was reasonable for deputy press to infer from the circumstance that the woman may have been injured and should sequester herself in the bathroom to recover from those injuries and or to protect herself from further injury what about appellate argument and i guess i need to look at this supreme court case this least intrusive means argument it's first is the law that requires that i guess that's my first question and the second but that be dealt with by if that is the law like calling someone out and the actual entry in that case was something like four hours where in this circumstance we have something in the manner of a few minutes back and had deputy para deputy present entering the hotel room was required to ensure the safety of a possible domestic assault victim had he simply remain in the hallway he would have not had the ability to perceive exactly what happened when ms bangs came out of the hotel out of the bathroom which was important to determining whether she was safe secure and whether an assault occurred in light of those circumstances of entering the motel room was reasonable one of the circumstances to have about thirty seconds remaining so i wanted to make one a final point for the court which is in the event that make up that the court disagrees with the government's position the government still believe that this that anywhere was harmless and i would point out for each of the three robberies one i believe it's two from the first robbery five in the second robbery and one from the final robbery actually three from the first robbery five in the second and one from the for their bank photographs surveillance photos they are photos from the surveillance photos in the camera they all show the defendant's head face and torso photographic evidence together with the eyewitness testimony was powerful and persuasive evidence the defendant's guilt it was the meat in the potatoes the items found in a hotel room were you know the cranberry sauce or the gravy i guess but depends on how you look at it thank you very much mr corey like you have about a minute left one wonders why the government fought so hard to get the physical evidence and if it but identify them in court that's hardly strong evidence