is that the dots never violated defendants legitimate expectations of privacy and this argument relies primarily on the united states supreme court decision and i will resist the united states information about other activities so for instance we might have activity where it was done in public a there would be no expectation of privacy but it was done in the home there might up standing outside the door a great wonderful technology could detect sort of blood samples inside blood samples of some of those missing those that were well ss use of a drug detection dog a mr lindsey's motel room door was a th amendment search now as my opponent has noted this decision is based on kyla and it's a logical well reasoned application of that decision now the relevant privacy interest in that case is the same privacy interest here in that case the court found the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy in his home which is in the case of the interior home a minimal expectation that exists and is considered to be reasonable with deep roots in the common law that's the characterization in the court's view that was violated when the government used to censor hansen device not available to the general public to discover what was otherwise undiscoverable in the house without a physical intrusion so it's the same privacy interest here and i think i can illustrate that best with hypothetical so let's say i'm staying at the american motor inn and i can see through the curtains the outline of a person standing at my door and they're facing the door doing nothing else and this goes on for more than a few moments will be deeply other saddled because there's a justifiable expectation that people don't do that the implication of course is that they're either physically trying to get into my home where that they're snooping trying to find out information that's consistent with karla because critical to that case was that he detection devices capable of detecting lawful activity in the home and so the other part of the crowley case that also is critical is the location and it's not just the location i think the state completely ignores the explicit statement in cairo that th amendment protection has never been dependent on the quality or quantity of information obtained and that's not just an isolated statement it is a part of the traffic stop dogs now and that that reading of cairo completely ignores the nd half of the decision that says explicitly we don't differentiate at the home because for precisely the reason if the government went back and said ok now we're going to develop a device that can just attack the outline of a cannabis plant i'm not saying that this is reasonable but certainly one hundred years ago they probably would have thought that you could develop a device attack in the home i don't i don't know what the government can produce and that is why the court explicitly said we're taking the long view of the th amendment and we're going to hold that apple home if there is a sense in hansen device not available to the general public but going to say the government can't use that without a warrant or probable cause exception so of course we're not saying that the government can never use a drug sniffing dog on the residence the door it's just the th amendment provides the balance between the expectation of privacy that we all have in our  spaces because of course there are some physical differences we have knowledge you know where you sat when you're going to multi you're talking about a motel room it's true but that the only difference between a motel and some apartments and single family homes would appear to be transients and that doesn't mean we don't have a minimal expectation when any of us check into a hotel room that's our home for the time that we're there now clearly as i said there are some differences but that we're talking about that money alone expectation of privacy and that's the relevant privacy interest here right now i think the law is clear that because of the public nature of roads if you're moving your car you know how it works if an expectation of privacy if you're living in a car but i think the rat has been cleared out of that a motel hotel room has you're going to this seems to detect what it that's inside the room and so the relevant privacy interest is the chi low privacy interest not the reduced expectation of privacy interests at the state courts and this was that the approach you know what's contraband is changing and so the idea that we don't want people in their homes in their residences in their dwellings to kokomo c of technology i think this goes hand in hand so as of january st in the state there's going to be some some management or even the police and have that person excluded so what is some expectation of excluding people from the space right outside my door and there isn't a right license for anyone to come out the door of my dwelling where the sense of handsome device to find out what's inside of it and three of the five majority justices in charge so a majority of the majority concur on this point to saying i could have just so easily decided this case based on a recent expectation of privacy analysis because of that using that method which might still be legal because a charity means which stated that it would be illegal under a separate and under one particular kind of analysis in on the property and in fact