case involving the warrantless entry under the guise of an emergency into my client's yard and subsequent killing of his pet tipple the district court found in the author's claim that the emergency exception murder thought to be gunshot later determined to be fireworks allowed the warrantless search and justify the entry even though there was no evidence of a true emergency counsel why isn't the fact that the officer heard what he thought were gunshots at the time and then heard moaning in fact or muddled sounds coming from a specific location after having heard gunshots why wasn't that reasonable would you agree that under the summary judgment standard of review you have the obligation to raise a material issue a fact that is correct so what is the material issue of fact that you to entering the yard and shooting there was a concurrent dispatch of a firework going sergeant wilson not only acknowledges hearing that there was a firework report but he also acknowledges that that is likely the sound he fireworks might sound like fireworks but perhaps to an officer and based upon his experience hearing the sound might have thought it was different might have thought in fact that it was in fact a gunshot yes your hon car drives around the block waits for other officers throughout his temple deposition testimony he talks about i needed to go save somebody's life i had to get there quickly however instead of jumping the immediate fence going through the yards where he was again he t ime to go around the block away for other officers doesn't knock and again there was this report of fireworks no blood no signs of a disturbance whatsoever in those front yard back yard  in addition the moment so let's say you're a police officer you're going to knock on the door and say hey you people that have just shot off a firearm and there's moaning that i'm hearing i'm coming in and can you please let me in is that what jury and it was a question of fact as to what he knew or what if you're you're not disputing that he said that he that he thought he heard a shot you're not disputing that a lay person called in a report of at least a possible firework maybe more to dispatch contemporaneous with what he heard that is two different people heard something now the layperson didn't hear the moaning or something that sounded like moaning so you don't dispute any of that accoun i dispute that was sergeant wilson thought i just knew that sergeant wilson did not truly believe this to be an easy well he did who calls into dispatch says i think we i may have heard a shot i'm hearing a moaning i'm going into the back or why would any officer subject themselves to that kind of risk unless they actually believe that there was something going on because the officer was just curious as to what the people had in was often wilson and other metro officers in general and i thought that there was on the record testimony about one officer having been there some ten years prior wasn't that the only reference to the yes there was one officer prior but there were officers in the vicinity earlier in that day and weeks prior mr testified about being told over and question about where he was he was getting a ride to a friends have any way to associate wilson with that no just this is not the giant conspiracy by by metro to harass your client what i submit is that this was after this happened this was a disturbance is able to look into the yard there's a helicopter flying over except for children's toys in the fast forward to the aftermath while mr pitino may not have been handcuffed i believe the were approximately seven family members of mr pitino that were placed in handcuffs when they exit it is in the front of the yard and of course no crime was committed by any of them however they were all cuffed put in the front yard for questioning why