the district court's order in this case approved a warrantless call out procedure to use the lower reasonable suspicion standard instead of probable cause q a quick question is there is this call out procedure a thing like i got to confess i hadn't seen it before this case but i mean the police departments do this kind of thing generally the game over task force certainly does it regularly routinely was there standard practice so i can't speak to whether because even if they have a warrant they'd prefer the person come out obviously a come on counsel that's not true i think that the position that they take is that in lieu of the exercise of having to get the warrant that this is even if they get the warrant they still call the person out even if you have a warrant you don't go charging is in a house they can't call and ask him to come out unless it's his house come on council maybe i misunderstood what i'm saying is if they've gone up to this house they see somebody looking out the window they have three relatives of the violent criminal standing beside them and say that john had recognizing many where john come out can the officers then call on john the armed and dangerous criminal to come out without a arresting i would agree with the klan so if they have reasonable cause to believe the violent criminal is in there only reason cause let me finish if they have probable cause to believe he's in there can they call out other members of scase gives you an implied license to go to the front door with only minor deviation by the appropriate path say for the limited purpose of talking with your hawker or a peddler or girl scout or  a trick or treater and knock on the door and wait briefly bieber's be receiving if not leave but i don't think there's in any probation enjoy our jeans or unpaid eagled calling out to your neighbor from from the street or versus jacobson right that says that the officer can walk up knock on the door guy comes to the door ask the guy to come out and then stop and stop and frisk him right that's not the point of the pain that though so it's a little bit different so yeah i think that under the knock and talk rubric we can go to the front door for a police officer by the normal path purpose of talking not for engaging in a search and gauging conversation and if the fugitive suspect agrees to come out of the house and you don't meet the requirements of payton where you can you have a warrant or you can go in and you can certainly ask people to come out they do that all the time so just tell me then i'm sure i'm missing something like what's the difference this was a problem yes the police entering the curtilage which they did they had the house surrounded they had officers at all four corners they had searched sign and figaro in the back of the house and the curtilage they had gallo on one corner and store on the other they had according to the testimony of my clients police cars up on the lawn so that would differentiate under jeff dean's under justice scalia's analysis and sardines the courts this and there's a distinction under the night case that you're alluding to in the scenario that i'm describing because there is a seizure of all the occupants of the residence and of course under michigan vs summers in the little low from that there is to fit the description of my five foot nine inch fifty year old client or moses nineteen sargent confronted described him as a little fellow he knew he was small fry and guilford said he was childlike in appearance from his previous surrounded under giardina is i don't think that you can remove people at the point of a bayonet the home is still hopefully the first among equals under the fourth amendment we haven't completely stripped that down in the whole idea of they went to every associates home looking for this individual and did this sort of thing and it requires a judge looking at the evidence to find probable cause because under the competitive business of ferreting out crime it chasing really bad people like normal is pure otherwise there would be problems for people like the smith family owned that home for twenty years raised their family there in peace i did by the laws the centerpiece so there was no evidence that this individual that they that they saw going in fit the description there's a nine inch height discrepancy this record found that there was a mistaken identification is your first kind never agreed that there was an identification he said look he matched the description because i was looking for an average sized black male which description never made an identification he could never saw the person's face while he hoped it was but it that he's off by he's using a five foot nine measurement set of a five made a mistake is what you're saying i'm not saying he made me ask us to return to this question i just want to make sure i understand your argument if anything that there had been no mistake and the person they were looking for was in the house this house was there any violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs yes under stieg all this is a third party house so they have no information that he lived at that residence i'm sorry if they saw him going in they actually saw him he was in the house was there any right under stiegel if it's a third party premises like the smith residence in this guy's transit or he had no home they knew that they knew he was a house hopper it's a third party residents pay to protect the third party in the absence of there being a search warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances are not played in this case i mean they all to know have to be played i mean it it my hypothetical is they solve the vomit criminal run into this house and they were right it was the violent criminal you've said that three times i've told jacek it i will check it but i'm just telling you if that's the best you've got to stand down i don't think it's that good but whether it is or not i'm exploring the hypothetical of if they saw him go into that house forget to play things forget the motions the briefs and everything else if they saw him go into that house what you have thereafter pleaded happened to these plaintiffs if he was and i'm just going to but questions out there we're all adults here one of your arguments a violation of one of your arguments of at least damages i think maybe constitutional violation is that they frisk er he didn't testify that he was frisked you played it that he didn't testify to the police admitted that well what the police officer said was let me read from the transcript is more accurate  and at the time that mr question mr smith is handcuffed did you conduct any sort of pat down of i'm going to proffer to you that my understanding is he was in boxer shorts back down mr mr boxer shorts ascertain whether he's carrying a weapon i don't recall that again my proper procedure would be immediately to go to an outside frisk for weapons i'm sure i did that but i don't recall sergeant can freida whose deposition was taken first agreed that there's always going to be a pat down that was just there standard procedures or so it was it was a non issue for the litigation because we all understood that they were not going to not pat down the person that's brought out there is this issue is that material to the violation i don't think so i think the issue with the violation simply whether under circumstances they don't  good morning jeff grant on behalf of the defendant officers first of all this was not just simply a knock and talk investigation this was a search for a wanted violent gun and they tapped this phone on him to go into a hartman building mistakenly and they went in and the court said you can do that because they were exigent circumstances based on the fact that this guy was the subject of an arrest warrant and he could get out turned out he was never in there but yes based on that you can going so in part your position is sort of the but it could have a presidential effect if it's held handcuffing someone under these circumstances was unconstitutional always argue we should have one for other reasons unless it's a separate claim our separate of our mandate if you don't have to go but that you're here regardless i guess listen i've been a and it's kind of relevant because there are still existing state local names that are sitting over and provide county yeah but we're not concerned about race judicata in court and i'm not sure they votes but they did it for security purposes to preserve the status quo in a situation where they didn't know who was in the house and if you  handcuffed for according to him maybe ten fifteen minutes agent guilford says it was about two or three minutes so we believe  that that was a legitimate law enforcement decision first didn't know who he was they knew he was not that man but they didn't know if that man was still in the house and by the  time the wife and the daughter came out they had already been talking to mr smith and realized ok we don't need to cuff them for any reason he was  about three minutes according to mrs smith the whole incident lasted twenty to twenty five minutes start to finish he was and  agent guilford said he cuffed mr smith for about two to three minutes after he was pulled out cuffed said set down by the car and then  of the twenty to twenty five minutes which we have to take is true for present purposes what portion of that time was he handcuffed for three minutes where was it on the gradient let's do a line let's say he was handcuffed ten minutes and that's what he's  out wasn't there the smith family certainly had no idea the police were outside i guess in fairness though right i mean you say if it had eggs didn't circumstances they could have gone into the house next door exigent circumstances here is really just sort of a counterfactual because they didn't go into the house they didn't go into what is it nine seventy six they call they did a call out of nine seventy six realized rats wrong house go to nine seventy four do the call out and cohort tells them to f off right yeah so the point is now they've eliminated nine seven six palmers the place where he's at they've got the phone beacon from one of the two houses so they've got more evidence now is it nine seven four palmer they still applied for the warrant in the warrant application install wrote that the information they had is that this guy was hanging out on palmer street not that he lived there and that was the truth they didn't know where he lived because he was truly transience because he was constantly running from the curtilage and using the point of a band that to extract these law abiding citizens from a home under circumstances where the description that they had would fit any blackmail thank you mr thank you and i wanted to add that