client did reside there there was also significant evidence including from his grandmother the house if i have that right that he didn't so why is the judge's  what the testimony was it was a chord's factual findings were i mean at page fifteen of the court's order the officers were still under pressure to find the shooter in the alleged victim they needed to leave the scene to take the lot of evidence that there's been a shooting that somebody might be dead that there might be additional victims and somebody is that large i mean this is not a place with a few julies force right  so so this is this is not like the same as downtown chicago or new york or honolulu i mean this is a this is a small police force and the judge made these factual findings and you want us to nd guess not just the that overnight guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy in and part of at least the premises if not all the premises supports that overnight guests can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage so walking with mr issue as an overnight guest even if we have to tell the courts factual findings as to whether he was a permanent resident why would we have a subjective expectation of privacy in the curtilage that society would be prepared to recognize as reasonable well our our understanding of the case later on it was that he had an expectation of privacy in his own longings in the room that he used but we don't even really know when he last stayed there bonniest said that he just he didn't live there he had a few things in his room and he didn't live at that residence so my understanding is that he has no expectation of privacy in the courage or the outer area of the house because he's not truly a resident doesn't live there even though he has some belongings in a room in the house apparently when when was wouldn't he have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area surrounding the house where his birthday party was because he is not the owner of the residence he was it was just a guess he had privacy and h particular belongings there but he didn't have any ownership or control over the over the house or over the outside of the house for that matter and that was the that was the finding of the district court which is supported by the  you're suppose for a moment that we don't agree with you on standing could you address that particularly focusing on the nd search why my st question is  do you understand the district court to have made a finding with respect to the end of all of the officers to obtain a warrant because when i look d at the opinion i mean he certainly concludes that accident circumstances are present but i don't see that more specific finding there i think it may be an implied finding your honor and it was because we're dealing with a reservation here of five hundred thousand acres two officers in a train duty that night and then the detective came when he was caught got out of bed and came down and as they explained and as the court has noted there was a need to go search for the victim there was a need to go search for the alleged shooter there was concerns about safety for the officers and i believe we can read a finding into the district court's opinion that that getting a search warrant that night for the reason but why couldn't she have been allowed to get the warrant while the others are off doing the things you mentioned well i think i think the problem also was security of the officers at the scene if anybody left there would have been one or at best two and maybe a trainee with a possible shooter nearby and perhaps insufficient security to provide for the officer safety and i think that was the big as it's possible she could got a gun warrant but but the other officers needed to go find the potential victim and then there was some searching needed to be done for the potential shooter so it's possible the crow could have gotten gun and gotten the word yes but as was indicated that would have taken considerable time and during that time there were other things that needed to be done that would have left and says insufficient yes i should have mentioned that the blood could have been destroyed with a garden hose and water and what event i test the ball after that and as i understand the facts the district court found there was already  i think the district court found that his decision not to seek a search warrant that time was appropriate and and that was based mostly on security of the officers and whoever might have had to stay behind there in a very unfriendly potentially dangerous place i'd like to address the other issues to the defense on the motion to dismiss apparently except the district court finding that there was no government misconduct in this case supervisory powers as reviewed for of use discretion and the district court found that the federal government did not violate the law the defendant apparently does not challenge these findings which you are entitled to to be paired to be primarily her pending charges of history for murder which which came before the district court issued its opinion counsel's would not testify and the district court did not her and was within its discretion to decline it supervisory powers and the court found the resolution did not cause own business council and we do not believe that they should be allowed to take advantage of that would benefit from that and so that's the crux of the matter of me thank you we