his nd claim is violation of his th amendment rights and in my arguments today i want to focus just or primarily on the th amendment claim now the th amendment claim city on the th amendment climb holding that mr della torrey did not conduct a search of mister clarke home or the curtilage but rather he engaged in a proper knock and talk which is a consensual encounter not a search and reaching this conclusion the district court primarily relied upon his decision this court's decision in united states versus sh unreasonable search all he did was go around go around the corner of the house if you for looking for the home well because he was not a proper knock and talk because he did not go to the front porch which was the normal route to access the property of any visitor he bypassed the front porch that was reasonable for him to do that when we see what front area house looks like it looks almost as though it's difficult if not impossible to get even to the front door much less through well it's mister karr's contention in my contention that that raises a fact question it's for the jury to determine whether or not his perception was reasonable and that the facts can give rise to dude two different views of them and although the poor choices even mister clarke admitted in approaching that porch they would have well if it was a brain trigger treed or they would have gone to the front door because mister karr testified that although there was a chair and a mattress on the front porch  that it was accessible that there was about five to six feet between the chair in the front door and that a reasonable trick or treater would go to that rather than to the back door because the back door could not be seen from any position well i don't think a front door nor did nestor park argue that a front door is the only way that you can access to a home but the question is what is the normal route of access for anyone visiting the premises that's a standard that this court adopted in shock and i think is the proper standard so the question is were there other alternatives here that would have been a normal route of access to the house or what if  i heard or heard a lot mellower or some sound from the backyard and knew that the person i was probably was trying to encounter was not inside the house but was out back so i go out back and you know try to  that is not relevant to the question is was he taking a normal route of access for anyone visiting the premises and outrigger treater for example one go to the back door rather then to the front door mister clarke's if he heard somebody back there trigger trigger or girl scout would have gone to the front door they didn't know what's in the back door the back door or the back part could not be seen even from the drive was so that how does the how does it have leading anywhere half evidence in this case what do we do that does that indicate where the front door is well the path there there's no worn path but the path or the route of access would be from the driveway up onto the porch now there was it was not warm but the grass was cut there were it there was no  it wasn't gated like the shut case the shut case there was a fence around the front part and it was locked and the officers testified that they believed it was  that it had not then just used here the officer simply testified that he didn't think the front porch had been used but he didn't clarify why he never explained why he couldn't cross the yes i agree and it's our contention that that reason when the issue under these facts presents a genuine issue a material fact which should be decided by the jury and not on some rigid and the not only the testimony but the pictures of the front door which are on pages two thousand seven hundred and twenty eight of the brief which in many ways is a picture is worth a one thousand words and if you look at that our contention a reasonable jury could conclude that the normal route of access for anyone visiting those premises would have been up on the front porch and the officer did not do that i thought that your client in this case  said that he had trained relatives to go to the back or nephew or some reference like that was made just testimony correct and again that factor would be considered by the jury but the delatour he wasn't aware of that fact i think what the jury would have to look at are what facts were known and observable by the officer and was it reasonable for him to assume that the normal route of access to the premises was not on the front through the front porch because what's key here is he never made an effort to go to the front porch and knock on the door or to even try and see if he could knock on the door was there a sense or no trust us no not in this case very briefly i think the photographs and included in our brief are consistent and show that the court's decision and that no reasonable jury could find that it was unreasonable to follow the the that and the evidence was that he stayed on the driveway he got to the back there was an enclosure around the back door so that you can see the back door from where he was he never reached that  past that any person of a gravel apron that was there at the back of the house and why is there an implied license to go to the back door even the front door is inaccessible you know if you if you walk up the driveway he gets past these barrels he's got all of these obstruction see he walks around these things goes into suppressed not a civil case why is there an implied license to go parallel to the bank yard even if it was reasonable because you haven't argued that that it license to do that i don't think i'm understanding the use of the term parallel to the backyard it was he he was basically a couple of feet away from getting into the guy's backyard that would be accurate that somebody doctor walks up my driveway to my backyard i have a sense if i did have a fence i would say what in the world are you doing what makes you think you can come here you know right next to our backyard jardins is the issue of whether or not the kind that was reasonable or was it simply whether or not there was an implied license to do i think it's both i think you look at whether an objectively reasonable officer under those circumstances knowing what tissues and even though it may may have been possible to get to it it obviously was not used that was not only items that he had placed on the front porch the block the interest so you have to squeeze by between the pillar and would probably take the reasonableness of that approach out the reasons of leaving that there's an implied license away from the officers assessed but under the circumstances there was no such situation it's true we i received his day in court the trial court found that there was that he did have standing to make a claim based upon the notice of violations that he had received officer but that he had no standing to assert a claim based upon any other provisions of the signed code the notice of violations was very specific it  inspected the city's right of worry there were large barrels signs and other objects next to the right way and he needed to remove those in the political signs are prohibited on the right of way or other public property  because some of the language can write out of that exemption but the notice itself addresses the prohibition of having the signs or other objects on the right of way and trial that's what was tried  very close to that there's a there's no credible threat of an force in that so there's never any standing to challenge anything other than this one notice a violation set a trial or put another way what would what relief could we grant for the plaintiff if there is no possibility at least we think so now no possibility of enforcement i don't think there is if your basically your interpretation just like mister carts that if you take out the exemption provision in for a and then i think it's in section five that that that that remains in place that that would if the answer to just i'm going to just question is that you now can't have any political science even if you delete the problematic provision for a well he's got this he's got these political about the district court improperly narrowing or framing its st amendment issue for trial and i understood that argument to be not allowing him to challenge   the signs according to the district court were the political slimes that he had in the right of way and by political science i mean elections on's he had signs that were supporting certain people for elections which are covered by the state law but his contention is is that he had other political science or science he considered to be political and the right away that were not covered or were not included in the elections one of those signs to protect our troops and the other symbol was a symbol of a cross in his argument is that he was not able to base his arguments on being prevented from displaying those signs or political science which were not election sides and on the question of threat of unforced man it's still h position that although there may be no code enforcement officer and there may be no municipal court he still doesn't know what the future will hold and that he because of this ordinance signs he was not able to argue how he felt that his st memory rights richfield in regard to the other signs that he had which is protect our troops and cross so that is his contention on why he believes he has standing and why the district court improperly limited what his st amendment  and unless a court has any other questions for me i don't have any further argument present receiving the rest of your time you are excused in the case that a thank you very much