speak why i can't hear you there ali has a whole audience that they are of a lot of different i'm guessing some entrance and law students as well as other counsel so i know it'll sound like you're shouting i can't do it now but we recently committed in dorman the time period is four hours our time period here in somehow six hours forty five minutes why would just a couple hours and nobody positively identified him and as the shooter but to someone in the car there was probably cause to arrest him for what that point rather is based on the evidence based on the incriminating items in defendant's car next actually when they went to the location of where the defendant lived and saw the car in the parking lot the witness one of the witnesses identified that three cars being the one that he saw  at this point where for the sing on whether or not the officers had consent to enter the multi unit apartment building the correct way the issues of entry into the apartment and this room are not and should correct  t in people versus firms that are illinois supreme court said it was on necessary to applies a reasonable expectation of privacy approach to analyzing the th amendment and s appeal could be decided really based on the property based current approach that was in florida versus your team so why if you can explain why do you in your brief cite burns for the just the opposite of what you felt burns was saying with regard to reasonable expectation of privacy in other words that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an unlocked now this was some throw violence you know isn't a big distinction and a more important issue i think the issue of probable cause why do you say that the police side did not have probable cause until they before they actually entered the building so why in that period of time did they not pick up the telephone and call the twenty four hour didn't judge to get an arrest warrant well we know you are from the record that it would take  you don't know what is good death so why they took every precaution they were delaying deliberately this wasn't deliberate way or guarding their own safety or guarding the safety of those around them they were but they approach were hearing the side of caution given the circumstances we think that was a reasonable asleep so it wasn't like he was going to jump out that window right then and that person was standing right there there was testimony that they were certain that he was going to him when he was actually sleeping early right for the door to door for and also they had no revision they had no reason to be there awful there was no probable cause in that case they had a home and or you can just go on a fishing expedition here we have a problem what we know is in the building because we see we know all we have with this is to say he he did he's one of the two people in this car that they can identify with and the police know that he is a gang member whether it be round lake or grease lake in bromley beach or grease lake and one or both of them know that how they get into the building what's you know nobody could tell us how they got into that building right well the in that case they had already gotten past the other door and so just at his door since he was going at it was a protected general area they couldn't take that t although those cases predated florida versus jury again we have federal cases that do support your position so it's a little bit difficult to ascertain the state of illinois la think you can see mr walker extreme circumstances is the exception in this case the state is arguing that there is danger to the officers there's danger to this same danger if that could have existed window before they got up to the apartment door did they know what it was to michael when they saw him when they did not move into the apartment window until after they were already in the park that was when the sergeant holes told detective grace to hol general public that was of some concern in their analysis that clearly the president's had an expectation of privacy in that area now while the state pointed out that he might kno outside the area of the apartment fits in question they don't seem to go back and talk about all the commentaries and where they do talk about a common area i can't remember the name of the case but it the landing was right there and it was right in front of the door that they wanted to get into it is has any case really talked about that locked doors on the st floor that they have to go through not so