please the court your honest this is a case where police conducted it warrantless search of a private citizens residence even though they never asked the citizen for permission to enter his apartment and even though the video it should carry no weight that your position right his testimony right now the video the video obviously is that his testimony right well what about the opposite what about hunters testimony that an officer sportbike the door if you say by not contradicting the testimony i mean the testimony was that they put a foot in the door and there are pieces of footage there that cooperate that suggest that that's what happened i mean you can actually see the officer approach the door and say i stepped toward it and it opened on its own without the daniel only on it so that's circumstantial evidence nd robbery is the test and it's your belief that there was no testimony by any police officer that he or she tried to keep the door open by sticking his or her foot away w obligated to believe mr hunter when he says that the one of the police officers put a foot in to staff the door from being shot for use trying to close the door your honor the correspondent for making credibility determinations however when those factual findings ok but there's also testimony that the officers entered the apartment mr hunter knew they entered the apartment at no time did he say hey you know get out i told you all done you doing they followed him to the the citizens burden to to object the state has to prove consent and here i don't think it's accurate to say that he didn't do anything that indicates a lack of consent he tried to close the door to times he said to hold on when the police are outside the apartment when the police ambiguously consenting to this and three to me walking back to the bedroom where your son was the state mentions this and the other real was hiding this is just more evidence that nothing it was not consenting the thing you know st of all it's only office to hold on testified what he would have gotten one of them to once we could go get his daughter when they came in despite his instructions he again told them to hold on and then turned back on the officers and continued walking never looked back at them never motioned for them to does a kind of thing you know they say anything to them he said to hold on and then he told them to hold on again and they did so well they didn't they actually crossed right past him if he didn't move he would have had a physical confrontation with the officer i'm this isn't a case where a lot of the cases the state cites the police asked you know for permission to enter and then there's some kind of body language indicating consent or acquiescence to the question there's no question here the police didn't ask anything the only state give me your you know best definition of what existence circumstances are well under the law under the law if they're basically are circumstances that justify a it warrantless search a factor this evidence was eminently destructible right we could be eaten consumable right i mean the food portion could have been eaten but there are also the plastic bags the receipt the bleach and somehow destroy the seven and so there's a father figure in the apartment police are surrounding the apartment there's no risk if ender's can leave there's no risk they can you know very little risk they could completely destroy this evidence and the state's entire case  case and their most critical evidence and it wasn't at any risk of being i mean certainly the case could have gone forward without the identification testimony or would have been significantly weaker with the food alone and again when you say the of the container of bleach regardless i think the important part is nobody is at risk of any harm here these offenders are not armed and dangerous the police know that at this point but they have the most props are there where they could actually leave officers guarding the apartment well the police did know at this point that by the time they searched they had already talked to the you complain and you know if you know this is longer detergent it wasn't bleach and they knew the condition the plane was in they could see that you know he he was fine basically after he had has eyes washed with water they won't burn you know there was no he wasn't taking a hostile leave so at the scene he was ok so i mean there's nobody there's no reason to believe that they could have harmed anyone particularly anybody outside of the apartment any member of the public or the police know that until after his eyes were washed out with a little bit after the fact while they while they started the search space was still under the impression i was looking for something please also had the wrong floor wrong ages of the girls the wrong number of girls in the apartment the fact that the vestibule area of the thirty four dollars building smelt like bleach failed to distinguish it from the other buildings two teenage girls who live there including a sixteen year old who's all right he said his sixteen year old daughter was the only girl that was home police are looking for two girls who are eighteen to twenty years old so she did not match that old daughter can look like a twenty year old girl i mean come on well there's no point in getting any information from a citizen if everything can just you know there's a point getting information this is this man was there doing his job trying to draft a food that they were going to pay for yes they didn't want to eighteen or twenty or maybe then fourteen i don't i don't know what the point of asking for that information is and when they ask for the information but i'm just suggesting that it defies you know just reality that somebody might  scrolls in when he entered the common bleach smell back no resident identify it any statement indicating this person was in this apartment the fact that three other apartments were uncertain have been in that apartment if if assistant state's attorney actually was on behalf of people this video is open to interpretation and we know it that's because it's video shows nothing else saying one thing and doing another and the juvenile court  originally knock on door he opens it ever so slightly and has the lights off inside of this home and is talking to the officers through this little gap in the door and at that time as they're asking him questions they find out that he has two teenagers one who's home and they ask to speak to her he says hold on hold on at that time the officers don't they do exactly what he said they way they don't try to enter because he has that door almost close he has those lights off he's made no affirmative  affirmatively to indicate these officers that they are welcome into his home at that time it's not until lieutenant lock me starts to approach the front door and says hello to nathaniel that he opens the door wide says hi how you doing and illuminates the lights inside of the home and steps the side which allows lieutenant lock me to enter at that point in time with ten o'clockne explains to nathaniel we are investigating this crime that occurred right out in front of your building involving two teenage girls you said that your sixteen year old daughter is home can we please speak to her and he says aha hold on as he's turning and walking down the hallway of his apartment so what lieutenant rodney understood that conduct to mean was that he was taking him to see responded in response to a question and i think what's interesting too is what we see later on in the video when lieutenant block me asked if he can search his bedroom e ask him if he can search his bedroom daniel says yeah and in the very same weight turns and begins guiding the officer into his bedroom so what is important here in the question before this court today is whether the juvenile courts determination was clearly erroneous and it's important that we look at this through that that lens because at the trial level the people had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was reasonable for these officers to believe that nothing i know was consenting to the search and the juvenile court made very clear in her ruling that based on the faneuil's conduct and his interactions with the officer that she believed that the state proved he was consenting to the search of the home so again it's just very important when we look at this case that we break down the video very closely look at exactly what happened and try to think was it reasonable for these officers based on all of this affirmative conduct to believe that they were being welcomed into the home and it's up to the state's position that upon reviewing this video evidence that was a correct determination that the respondent has not met her burden at this point in time to prove that the juvenile court finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence so i'd also like to point out that even if this court found that you can of course ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence the facts here do not support the application of the exclusionary rule and i you all know the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that perspectively protects the th amendment rights by deterring future police misconduct and police misconduct as expressed by the united states supreme court isn't simple isolated negligence this involves a deliberate or reckless or grossly negligent disregard for th amendment rights by the police so here there is no evidence that the policing gauged in any kind of flagrant misconduct at the very most these officers just misjudged nathaniel's intent and ten o'clock news testimony really underscores this point because he repeatedly expressed that he believed that they know was inviting him into the home and we know this is credible because the juvenile court who's a neutral arbiter of fact viewed this body camera footage and came to the same conclusion as did lieutenant i'd also like to point out that the requested relief that responder has asked for in this case which is outright reversal of her adjudication is improper for a number of reasons st the admission of the alleged and properly admitted evidence in this case was harmless where the victim here consistently and credibly described the defense and positively identified the responder as the offender at trial and the victim's description of the offense and is respondent are independent of the alleged and properly emitted evidence we know this because the victim here had a very clear a very close and a very lengthy opportunity to view the respondent at the time the crime was committed  d to any extent that this court doesn't believe that this record sufficiently establishes an independent basis for the victim's identification of respondent the proper remedy is not outright reversal it's simply to remand the including the alleged improperly admitted evidence proved to respond that guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and as you know i recently filed a motion to cite additional authority with this court's illinois supreme court in its straight decision recently slab and i'm discussed with counsel i just wanted to point out that the fact that these are drastically different than what we have before this court that case also involved i've been your camera footage and it's cited by the defendant to argue that the  when trial came and the dash cam footage revealed what actually transpired between the officer in this man and showed not only that the defendant didn't yell and didn't refuse to get back in his vehicle but that the officer actually dragged the defendant out of his car in taste him so in that case the court applied the appropriate standard to refute my purview and found that no rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of obstructing a peace officer based on those facts so unless there are any questions at this court for all of these reasons and those stated in the people's brief we ask you a firm  him and in order will issue forth with thank you