case number seven this morning is walker against wetherspoon mr fleck may please the court this case is about the search of katrina walker's home the police officers are looking for a male drug dealer named t they didn't find him because he didn't live in the street miss walker's house miss walker's  correctional officer at the cook county jail there's no accusation that she has anything to do with drugs the officers learned within minutes of beginning their search the teeth didn't live in the home nevertheless a team of eight officers spent at least two hours combing through miss walker's belongings a jury must determine whether that two hour search was reasonable a jury's also needed to determine whether officer wetherspoon properly pretty sure the warrant to search was walker's home  the war was based on an anonymous informants tip officer weatherstone attempted to corroborate the information that he got from the informant he showed photos of the tipster to try to get her to identify who she was both times he tried that  failed he looked for t's car that the tips your told him would be in a band and lot next to the house as he went by the house at least four times couldn't find the car finally he observed the home the tipster had told him that he was dealing drugs all day in this case the separate document required by rule fifty eight was entered into aug sixteenth twenty seventy that's clear enough the problem you face and which your briefs did not discuss is r procedure for a seven a one which says that the judgment is deemed to be entered on the earlier of compliance with rule fifty eight or one hundred fifty days after the decision is so that the rule so you can't you're not safe and waiting for the rule fifty eight judgment that's the problem the the rule applies two hundred  decision was not entered when the court entered its docket entry stating for the reasons in the forthcoming memorandum opinion and order summary judgment is granted that district court told the parties there's a condition that has to be satisfied before you have a fine only fortunately if the guy came and had said i decided to grant summary judgment on such a judgment will be entered when i release my opinion you might have some support but it's not what it said though just said summary judgment is entered those words that you just gave me are not in the written order no they're not but they are the way that all of the parties to the case read the order and based on the court's laid order saying enter the final judgment after it issued its written order we know that was the court's intent that the final decision wasn't until this co reason why you didn't file a protective notice of appeal that the reason that plaintiff's counsel at that time didn't file protection as appeal is because like the defendants in the case they read the court fifty nine motion either one stops the clock and neither one is done here it seems to me that what you're really asking us to do is just ignore rules for a seven and you want to go back to the old world it might be a good thing to do but well the rule is there the reason this is not the same as waiting indefinitely for the separate document is because there was another condition that the court told the parties had to be satisfied before there was a final decision and that was just enough i raised as a condition it says the motion for summary judgment is granted and then it says for reasons to be stated later well it doesn't it says for reasons to be so we sometimes enter a judgment that says the judgment is a firm opinion to follow i think it's very clear that the time to seek search are already starts ticking the day that thing is entered even though the opinion hasn't followed yet i think that's what the supreme court thinks too and it's certainly what you'll find in stone and grass when the the supreme court practice in this court's practice doesn't take into account this other issue which we have motivating the district court which is the march thirty f that that's the day in which the court has to report pendleton's york your position is that this was drawn so that the case would no longer be under advisement on march thirty one and if it's no longer under advisement on march thirty one that means it's been decided that's that's not what the d c circuit held in the same marks place case that we rely on in that case the court treated as administrative closure for the purpose of reporting and held that there the d c circuit chose to treat what a district judge had done as a fraud we tend not to treat district judges who is committing fraud i've i don't know what it's worth by the way the appeal in the d c circuit case was totally under rule for a the d c circuit treated the district court's ruling as a fraud i think that the d c circuit was critical of what the district court did in the news but it also said we take the district court as its words and it said we're going to rely on the intent of the district courts th district courts get to determine when to when they decide cases and the in that's exactly what happened here the district court decided when it would decide the case that it took it over a year to issue this written judgment and that's when it decided the case when it satisfied the condition in its initial docket entry we also say these other cases where courts of considered when there are two documents that could be considered the final judgment and have ruled in a way to protect what he can rights to appeal and that's what we're asking the court to interpret the rules here if not jurisdictional statutes but claim processing and it doesn't set this time within which to file that appeal at that time a set by the statute what the rules do is they define what constitutes the entry so that is out as ish and so six for the last six months and most recently within the last twenty four hours she gave a detailed account of how she gets to the dealers residence and indeed the office of what is on this defied that he found that very th waxman the court asked about the hammer case and i believe what counsel for after all these agreed was that the holding of hammer that rule for a five c is not jurisdictional applies here that the rule that the court has been discussing