this case turns somewhat the definition of curtilage our arguments are basically that the police officers in this matter without a warrant only think if you know that it is his home you know or have probable cause they think they're only you know that it's his home your position is that if an officer has probable cause that person in the arrest warrant is present in the house that's not sufficient grounds to enter the house it is not your honor that would be sufficient grounds perhaps to gain a search warrant for that house you have probable cause to think that in effect contraband in this case someone with a warrant was inside the house and then at that point you could get a search warrant to enter the house but the fact that a person has a warrant for his arrest and he may be in a house not necessarily his residence that some of the cases may turn out whether it's his residence or not and in this case the police officers gave no indication anywhere in this matter that this was his residence however it was his residence and hence we have standing to raise the issue of hurlock in this matter and that's our position because he was living in that house the police officers did not know it however indeed the police officers received information that so in this was perhaps in the house as well as two other people all three of which had arrest warrants for them the officer to receive that information  surrounded the home and two officers approached the front door now they did not have a moron so they chose to use what's known and police when you go as a knock and talk now there was never going to knock on the door and i'm not in soc then it is an attempt to was under the circumstances late at night with officers that were decked out in a socially and a swat team closing with dark clothes with their badges however they were identified there is no indication that there was any information gained by the officers that we allege you know while they were in the in the curtilage that led to what's around them and so this could this very well your honor the relevance would be his they were in the an area they were not authorized to be and they were in there as they were attempting to gain consent it would be the same thing as if they were in a hole already inside inside the walls that was never suggested that we could suppress any that we wanted to present evidence that was there's a search of the house and entry into the house and it was an illegal entry as they entered they had already violated the fourth amendment they were violating as they entered the house has some issues to do later when we're talking about whether whether it was voluntary or not and indeed assuming that my last argument was assuming that it was a voluntary consent to vet the bomb the officers had already the fourth amendment and were violating it as they were asking for consent and indeed i used the worst what they were really doing was begging for forgiveness as opposed to for asking for permission at that issue before us on the curly issue on my return to that would be as to whether the district court judge properly determine whether this duplex had curtilage at all indeed from the pictures and that sort of thing that were presented to them and the arguments that the government made underdone per se there was no credible it's at that house but indeed there was indeed if i could refer you to the to the pictures of the home that were provided by the government after we determined we couldn't find it and find them you can see from the pictures of the back i believe it was to the to the duplex looking at a at a wading pool of a child's mean if curtilage is an area where people have expectations of privacy or fig do the intimate things associated with their lives i would say that this little  the law to her for five minutes where her child was going to be taken away or she was going to be prosecuted for hiding people in her house ok that was submitting to the authority of those officers that wasn't granted consent was  somebody was in the house before they could go in whether it whether it was the the issue that the officers have to know or do they have to have probable cause i believe the standard is the officers had to have probable cause in order to enter that residence enter the house they chose a less intrusive means of investigating whether these individuals were at the house or not they chose the to try to gain consent from the residents of the house i'll also point out that even though one of the officers in the case characterized this as a knock and talk this case really isn't a typical knocking tock the courts are often confronted with these officers were not at the house to fish for evidence evidence of illegal activity or contraband they were at the house for one specific purpose and that was to determine if three fugitives were currently inside the residence i would disagree with mr maritz from the point that currently just the more the more important issue in this case we believe that the ultimate ultimate issue in this case boils down to whether rosen tina gonzales gave voluntary consent and there's no better evidence she provided voluntary consent than her testimony at the suppression hearing when she was asked by mr maritz did they ask you if they could come in referring to the officers and she said yes he then asked her what was your response and she said i said sure he then asked her right away and she said yes so based on her testimony alone there's no evidence that her that her consent was  in voluntarily given coerced or threatened if the panel has it unless the panel has any further questions for me i'll rest on life on my brief in the city on this matter thank you thank you so master think you have about thirty nine discussing the situation with mr gonzales as she never however never deny them immediately entry into this thing however there was a five minute conversation going on there and her testimony at the suppression he