under your hypothetical you would like to get around pain vs new york you need probable cause plus exigent circumstances i'd believe that there would be cases all supporting under the police having a confidential informant who went to the defendant's halls and made a purchase of droves with more bills went back to the place where the police were set up two blocks away had the drugs didn't have the money anymore so police went to boss of the defendant's house upon their arrival they saw the defendant standing right in the doorway one step put her out so once that puts her back inside right on the threshold to  this case we don't have the facts comparable to that we have a door that opens inward according to deputy while there's testimony which puts the defendant at least three feet back from the threshold that he will testify the door opened the defendant was standing there and everything happened very fast the defendant took half a step backwards toward the apartment which was soon but slightly more than three feet back three feet in it is crucial because santana is the case that we have to go by which in which the defendant was right on the threshold i would assume that they had in just since it all inside the threshold keeps the defendant in the privacy of his own home the essence of hot pursuit is to allow police to pursue a defendant from a public place to a private place and it doesn't have to be you know a long chase through the streets or can be across the threshold like that as in santana but in this case where the defendant is even just one foot inside his apartment on his side of the threshold he's in his  threshold of that apartment is that similar to santana is they have a common area of the hallway similar to what the court in that common area of the hallway to where the defendant santana was standing which was i guess it was a house instead of an apartment but there were there to the it's definitely a common area  it's the privacy of the inside of his apartment here there's an argument to be made another to me to this court that didn't even if you was in the threshold you can argue that he was still in a private place because if i if there's no dispute about where the threshold is or how wide it is or hoping it is if you're if the defendant is inside that is on the private side of the threshold he or she is protected period because santana  the position of the defendant was such that one put him put her that it was a woman outside of her residence one step in the other way and she's back inside in this case given the facts of being a lease three of i believe he was in the apartment he finally when he saw a gentleman run to his right down the hallway and heard the door because if he's not in the apartment legally i don't believe he perkel evidence that there was another person so you're saying the presence of another person in the apartment would have given him what he needed to do that protective sweep and as he was doing the protective sweep of course then that's when he saw said that he drew his come before he went into the back bedroom well during his protective sweep because he had reason to believe there was someone in there but i don't recall that he said he had just gone through and when he was at the door while i was there at the door and door individuals approached the vehicle began hitting her inside the vehicle so there was a crime of violence that occurred ms harrison made a distress call to the police officer will one of the officers who  investigating a complaint of aggravated battery on a public way he did shortly scuse me you're calling this a crime and violence but you're saying it was aggravated battery comes on a public way she didn't have to go to the hospital right and didn't sustain any to the defendant's house he was familiar with the area and knew the defendant school friend from previous contacts with her at a gas station where he used to patrol and so as he said the the common area nicole police the defendant then immediately opens the door he's standing there in the record indicates he appears to be surprised that the officer was right outside the door so the officer went there to investigate to separate a battery on a public battery of course a lot of that would depend on the push like terry stopped would depend on the answers that the defendant would give the officer didn't even have an opportunity to knock on the do more he didn't ever have an opportunity to announce because the defendant opened the door and immediately upon seeing the officer he doors the officer has no way of knowing whether or not there's a door to the back whether or not the defendant may be lurching out to get a weapon the reasonable belief he's at this apartment he knows there's drug trafficking there and i believe you could put him in reasonable apprehension that there may be weapons in that apartment or that he may may be at risk of an injury to himsel arrest of mr davis he sees another male running towards the back of the car at that point the officer justified in conducting a protective sweep the left let's go back and talk about before we get to the protective s versus where determine that the threshold of the home is still a public place was the officer crossed that threshold i agree that he was thin and in a private residence but the door was open and definit simply i would agree with that as well your honor but in the weird case the officer specifically followed the defended inside of his open door i think it was a little bit of a different case because this officer had witnessed the defendant driving his significant difference when the police officer observes the defendant outside his home with probable cause that man he is from driving in the influence and then pursues the defendant into the home as opposed to a defendant is never outside the home and that is significant factual distinction i would agree the facts are a little bit different but in this case you have to look at whether an officer will or a while or however you pronounce his name had probable cause to arrest him he had probable cause to t i would ask you to do this consider that again the case of pain versus new york that was a consolidated case one of the two cases and that was the police went to the defendant's door and knocked on the door the door was against the defendant's young child police officer solved through the open doorway the defendant sitting on the bed the police officer who upon seeing the defendant i think you've set the bar so low that peter is practically none of non factory any more and you know there's always going to be probable cause you are we can assume that there was in this case and then if you say well there's other things that inside the privacy of your house what restrictions to place some someone inside the privacy of your home are you is a requirement that you have to speak with the police that you have