questionable was unreasonable or not and so we have this in sufficient testimony for you to make that determination and you and additionally under the gun it's not as long as thing the fourth amendment also applies because we have testimony from brown's mother that her grandmother i mean her mother brown's grandfather owned the entire building it's a two five with two apartments on each floor and that because of the arrangement  officers the officers intrusion was reasonable and does not fall within the and that's what he did here he simply pursued he followed there's no fourth amendment violation in following this defendant into what is an open and i must pass a bill of what he described was a residential building and i'm not going to i think it's important to note that this is a residential this building i came back to this court to review the records and make sure that from what my notes under said that that was not the case and in fact if and it's a four pages of the record that defendant's family all lived in in those units on d v d twenty martin that case was a duplex so one apartment down and one apartment about there was no one living in that second partment just the mother and the first floor and she testified that she indeed treated it like a family home which we should recognize that such and we don't have that here and that's what we do have here is a record that this court can affirm the trial court's decision what we have on appeal is a newly formed issue though in this instance fight at this point all the defendant was your ex is now abstract she was doing was following the defendant and it's our position that there is no way that he would have known that this is anything but a residential building it's two stories it's four apartment it's an open and i'm not door that he proceeded into now whether or not the door hit him as the door shutting or he will do not contend that he barged in the fact remains that it was an open area in a common space where would this defendant doesn't have his life  talking about here and i think what we're talking about here is that he's in a high crime area he's aware there on routine patrol he's aware of the suspended and of the senate immediately gay flight i believe if you have a high crime area and that flight that leads you to that was he didn't feel i of the defend its mother's apartment none of the four done factors favor him in this instance for the number one is talks of me this occurred this festival was possibly thirty feet from the defendant's front door and also there is a small flight of stairs in between which is vastly different than a lot of all the cases that the defender lies upon what we're talking about the front porch of a home or perhaps the threshold of a doorway their inclusion of the area or the best both within and closer surrounding the home there's no testimony in record that there's any fencing on the nature in the use of the vestibule this wasn't soley defend its will to use or in a limited purpose like a threshold of a door would be where the ten in that unit would be the one that would go in and out is an area that everyone in that building us are the witnesses that talk about how the correct defendant's grandmother owned belting the only time you hear about families and other units is from the defendant's mother she never specifically said that those families are related to her family now the family members i related to the defendant they all live together in the two bedroom apartment that his mother owns so there's that presumably there's other people and that not all units the other three we don't know who they are need a key you don't need a buzzer to get in the defend itself and had no point on that issue it was only the defendant's mother but justified that while she was writing out the defendant the evening of valentine's day she was going to lock the door not that the door was always locked with that residence and that building always kept it locked or that presidents and that those things all collectively came together as a four unit building and said we will always keep the store locked but it doesn't matter because on the day in question the opposite threshold of an apartment to work in a building where like the bunny said that it didn't matter if it was locked or unlocked what they were concerned about was protecting like the sanctity of the home and it's our position that that's very difference between our case and those cases burns a million hardy is that they were more concerned with the immediacy of this search and the distance of the search and whether or not the officers conducted a proper search and here we don't have that strengthen that because you're giving say you're giving an opportunity for maybe a lower income family that lives in a building typical today where the door is always open and unlocked and you say ok that  correlated to an apartment that's that's not a feet away where's the expectation of privacy that societies much recognize on behalf of all those other people who probably prefer that a defendant not use their common area to maintain their you know contraband as it were me i don't i don't think that rocks and no locks are what's going to be dispositive of this issue and i do think and donia i think they options at that point we thought that there was a claim here that had some merit but maybe there are some undeveloped records not i hear it's not the state's fault state you know this was an argument if there was a much more limited fourth amendment claim in the other three apartments related this is exactly what she said that she has to find that families each apartment in the building but mainly by you know my mom being in that one i mean in that one when we in the daytime we mostly be at my apartment we acknowledge in our opening brief that although somewhat unclear it seems to imply that she now or that she has to find that other family members occupied in the building i asked him whether  like that would be appropriate remedy as well we mean the record sufficient as it is because you do have the people which justify and what they would say and we do have a testimony about the just stance and officer